MADHI MAL Vs. SAT PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenant's petition, which arises out an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), filed by the landlord, respondent herein, seeking ejectment of the tenant on two grounds (i) that he required the disputed premises for his own bonafide requirement, and (ii) that the tenant had allowed the premises to remain unoccupied for a period of more than four months.

(2.) Before taking note of the contentions raised on behalf of the parties, a new relevant facts deserves to be taken notice of and dealt with.

(3.) The landlord, a co-parcener in a co-parcenery family, claimed exclusive possession of the disputed premises as a result of a gift said to have been made by the Karta of the co-parcenery, his grand-father Chandu Mal, some four years prior to the date of the filing of the present petition. Admittedly the tenant had been inducted on the premises by the Karta as head of the coparcenary family M/s. Chandu Mal Gheesu Ram. It was alleged in the petition that in the house in which the landlord at the time of filing of petition was residing he had half share, but his share as also the other half of the building was being used for the purposes of residence by his parents, brothers, in all eight in number, and he himself occupied only a varandah of the said premises, which had been enclosed. It is further alleged that necessity for separate premises had arisen on account of his having married about a year and a half prior to the date of the filing of the petition.