TEK CHAND Vs. KARTAR KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order dated September 9, 1975 of the appellate authority, Sangrur, affirming that of the Rent Controller, Sangrur, dated February 18, 1974, whereby a decree for ejectment of petitioner-tenant from the demised premises was passed.

(2.) The petitioner is a tenant of the house, in dispute, under Smt. Kartar Kaur respondent, who filed an application for his eviction under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on two grounds : firstly, non-payment of rent and secondly that she requires the demised premises for her personal use. The petitioner resisted the application and pleaded that the premises were not required by the landlady for her personal use and occupation and that the application was mala fide as he had brought a suit for possession by way of pre-emption against the landlady. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :

(3.) Mr. A.S. Rupal, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged that in fact the petitioner is occupying another house and it does not form part of the house in dispute, and that the respondent landlady has other houses also and on this ground alone her application for ejectment be dismissed I do not find merit in either of these contentions. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was never urged before the Rent Controller or the appellate authority. No issue whatsoever was framed on this point So far as the second contention is concerned, the Rent Controller and the appellate authority have found that one house is in the name of her husband and another in the name of her son and that the respondent owns only the house, in dispute, and no other house. She had produced evidence to prove that the premises in dispute, were required by her for her personal use and occupation She has appeared as A. W. 3 and has stated that she had purchased the house in dispute for her personal use and occupation as the portion already in her occupation was insufficient. Her statement is corroborated by the evidence of A. W. 1 Gurdev Singh, A. W. 2 Bishan Singh. A. W. 5 Balbir Kaur and A. W. 7 Harbhajan Singh. No other point is urged.