GITA RAM Vs. ANANT RAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant's revision petition arising out of ejectment proceedings under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.

(2.) The Respondents and the Petitioner are landlords and tenant respectively of the property located at Sanjauli in Khasra Nos. 72 and 73, Khata Khatauni Nos. 16 and 17, and measuring 1845 sq. ft. The Respondents (the landlords) filed a petition under Sec. 13(3)(ii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act for the ejectment of the Petitioner (the tenant), alleging inter alia that they required the plot of land for their own use as they intended to raise a building on it for their bakery business. The petition was opposed by the tenant. He urged that the petition was not competent inasmuch as the premises represented a "built -up area", that the landlords did not bona fide require the premises for their own use, that no valid notice had been served terminating his tenancy, and that a previously instituted petition by the landlords had been dismissed.

(3.) The Controller allowed the ejectment petition by an order dated January 20, 1973, and directed the tenant to hand over vacant possession of the site to the landlords. The tenant appealed, and the appeal has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Simla, by its order dated March 30, 1976. The Appellate Authority has found that originally a building belonging to the previous owners of the premises had stood on the site, that it was gutted by fire, and thereafter the land site was let out by them to the present Petitioner. The tenant carried on the business of a coal depot on the land and constructed a temporary structure as an office for the purpose of the business. The Appellate Authority has held that the premises let out to the tenant consisted of a vacant site, and could not be described as a building. The tenancy covering the present occupation has been found to be a tenancy from month to month and the notice under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act to be valid. It has also found that the earlier petition filed by the landlords was withdrawn with permission to file a fresh petition. The Appellate Authority then considered the case of the parties on the material on the record and has affirmed that the landlords required the premises for their own use.