HARBANS SINGH Vs. BALWINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of C.R Nos. 7916 and 7917 of 2015 and CR No. 8337 of 2015.

(2.) All these three petitions have been filed by the landlord, who was unsuccessful in three petitions filed by him, under Sec. 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'Act') seeking eviction of the different tenants in all the three premises. All the petitions have been dismissed by the learned Rent Controller, Nakodar, vide separate impugned orders evenly dtd. 12/3/2013. Appeals filed by the petitioner were also dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority, Jalandhar. All three petitions are taken up for hearing together as similar grounds have been raised in all the cases.

(3.) Relationship of landlord-tenant was admitted by the respondent- tenant. Rate of rent was disputed. Tenancy was stated to be oral. Personal bona fide necessity of the landlord was denied as the petitioner's son Sukhwinder Singh was claimed to be engaged in business in the shops which were already in possession of the landlord. It was denied that any material alteration or change had been carried out in the shop in dispute.