- (1.) This appeal is brought by special leave from the judgment of the Punjab High Court dated April 4, 1965 in Civil Revision No. 309 of 1965 whereby the High Court allowed the revision petition of respondent No. 1 and ordered eviction of the appellant from the premises in dispute.
(2.) The appellant is a tenant of a residential house situated in Abohar Mandi for about 25 years. The previous landlord was a relation of the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 the present landlord, purchased the premises on April 25, 1960. The respondent No. 1 filed an application on February 16, 1963 for ejectment of the appellant on two grounds :- (1) that the appellant-tenant had sublet a portion of the house and (2) that the landlord required the premises for his personal use. The Rent Controller rejected both the contentions and dismissed the application of respondent No. 1. Against the judgment of the Rent Controller the respondent No. 1 filed an appeal before the appellate authority who by his judgment dated December 17, 1964 dismissed the appeal. Respondent No. 1 thereafter presented a revision petition before the Punjab High Court which allowed the revision petition and ordered the eviction of the appellant on the ground that there was sufficient evidence to prove that respondent No. 1 required the premises bonafide for his personal use. Section 13(3)(i)(a), (b) and (c) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (East Punjab Act III of 1949) (hereafter called the Act) states - "A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession - (1) in the case of a residential building, if - (a) he requires it for his own occupation; (b) he is not occupying another residential building in the Urban area concerned; and (c) he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause after the commencement of this Act in the said urban area," Section 15(5) of the Act states - "The High Court may, at any time on the application of any aggrieved party or on its own motion, call for and examine the records relating to any order passed or proceedings taken under this Act for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of such order or proceedings and may pass such order in relation thereof as it may deem fit."
(3.) In support of this appeal it was argued in the first place that the High Court committed an error of law when it took into consideration the insufficiency of the premises already occupied by the landlord in the urban area concerned. In this connection the High Court has pointed out that the landlord had been occupying only three rooms and a bath room and he was using one room as a kitchen. He had an aged mother living with him and he had a conveyance in the shape of a motor cycle. The landlord purchased the disputed premises on April 25, 1960 for a sum of Rs. 13,000/-. The High Court has taken the view that there was sufficient reason for the landlord to vacate the premises already occupied by him and seek to live in premises that had been purchased by him. In support of this view the High Court referred to the decision of Full Bench of the Punjab High Court in M/s. Sant Ram Des Raj v. Karam Chand,1958 2 ILR(P&H) 406 in which it was held that if a landlord establishes that he had made his application for eviction of his tenant in good faith and that he required the premises for his own occupation and further that the premises already in his occupation did not meet his requirements and needs, he was entitled to evict the tenant under Section 13(3)(i)(a) of the Act. It was contended by Mr. Naunit Lal that the decision of the Full Bench required reconsideration. But no such point was taken up in the High Court and we see no reason for entertaining this argument for the first time in this appeal.;