SUBHASH CHAND Vs. NIRMAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised two pleas while challenging orders passed by the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority ordering ejectment of the petitioner from the demised premises. Firstly, the respondent-landlord has nowhere pleaded in his petition that he did not possess or has vacated any premises within the municipal area of Phagwara and secondly, no such plea was raised for the grand son of respondent landlord for whose necessity, the ejectment of petitioner was sought. He further submits that relevant questions were not allowed to be put during the cross-examination of grand son of respondent. In this regard, petitioner had moved application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC to seek permission to further cross-examine grand son of respondent-landlord namely Ranjit Singh, which was wrongly declined by Appellate Authority. Similar application has now been filed in this appeal and same be allowed to provide opportunity to the petitioner to bring on record relevant material facts.

(3.) Copy of the ejectment petition has been placed on file as Annexure P-1, which shows that in para 3(iii), petitioner has categorically stated that he has no other suitable accommodation to fulfill requirement of his grand son in the urban area of Phagwara nor has vacated any shop or let out any other shop in the municipal area of Phagwara, after the commencement of the Act. Respondent-landlord has further clarified that he has six shops in Balmiki Mohalla, Phagwara and all these shops are under the tenancy of different tenants since long. His other four shops situated at Chaura Khuh area are also under the tenancy of different tenants since long and except demised premises, he has no other commercial property suitable for the bona fide requirement of his grand son Ranjit Singh.