SOBH RAJ Vs. DIN DAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord-respondent filed an application for ejectment, as a specified landlord u/s 13A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, of the tenant revision-petitioner from a portion of house No. 2042, measuring 35' x 38', comprising of a room and a compound, with the boundaries mentioned therein. The tenant filed an application on 22.5.1987, seeking leave to contest the ejectment application moved by the landlord. The landlord-applicant alleged that he was retiring from the Central Government service with effect from 29.2.1988 and certificate of retirement was attached. The need for eviction was that he wanted the demised premises for his personal use and occupation, as he had no other house at Rajpura. The petitioner tenant has put up a ground that the premises in dispute are being used as a workshop by him and it was not a residential building or a scheduled building. He also challenged the landlord to be a specified landlord.

(2.) AFTER hearing arguments, the learned Rent Controller refused permission to the tenant-petitioner to contest the application. Against that order of refusal of permission, the revision petition has been preferred by the tenant.

(3.) THIS revision petition is, therefore, accepted and refusal of permission is set aside. The tenant is granted permission to defend the eviction application under Section 13A of the Act. No order as to costs.