NIRMAL SINGH GILL Vs. UNITED CHURCH OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-tenant has filed this revision petition against the orders of the authorities below by which he has been ordered to be evicted from the demised premises under Section (13)(a)(i)(d) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called the Act). The facts of the instant case may briefly be stated in order to appreciate the question of law which arises for determination in this revision petition.

(2.) THE landlord filed an ejectment application on the ground that the petitioner was employed as a teacher and that since he has ceased to be in the employment of the landlord he is liable to be evicted under Section 13(3)(a)(i)(d) of the Act. It is the case of the landlord that the premises in question were let out to the tenant for use as a residence for the reasons of his being in service and employment of the landlord for the period for which he was to remain in service. This averment in the application was not denied. The relevant averment made in paragraph 5 of the application is reproduced below :-

(3.) MR . V.K. Jhanji, learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant has vehemently argued that since the petitioner was a licensee and not a tenant of the landlord, he could not be evicted under the provisions of the Rent Act and that he could be evicted only through the Civil Court. In support of his argument he has relied upon two judicial pronouncements, namely, I.B.M. Lall and another v. M/s. Dunlop Rubber Co. and another, A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 175 and S.S. Bedi v. Punjab Public School and another, 1981(2) R.L.R. 571.