VINOD KUMAR MITTAL Vs. GIRDHARI LAL SAROA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE matrix of the facts culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal, of present petition filed by Vinod Kumar Mittal son of Om Parkash-petitioner-tenant (hereinafter to be referred as 'the tenant') and emanating from the record, is that originally, Girdhari Lal Saroa son of Amar Chand-respondent-landlord (hereinafter to be referred as 'the landlord') filed the ejectment petition against the tenant, invoking the provisions of Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 ((hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') from the shop in question on the grounds of non-payment of rent and personal necessity etc.

(2.) THE tenant contested the ejectment petition and filed the written statement, inter-alia stoutly denying the claim of the landlord.

(3.) HAVING lost the legal battle, the tenant has preferred the present petition for setting aside the impugned orders of the Courts below. That is how I am seized of the matter.