- (1.) The landlord-Petitioner filed an application under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, (hereinafter called the Act) for ejectment of the respondent from the premises, in dispute, consisting of one room on the ground of personal necessity. Application was con tested by the tenant on the ground that the premises were let out for the purpose of his business, that is for use as godown and thus being a non-residential premises, no application on the ground of a personal necessity was competent. The Rent Controller upheld the plea of the landlord and ordered ejectment of the tenant. However, on appeal, the learned Appellate Authority, after appreciating the evidence reversed the finding of the Rent Controller holding that the premises in dispute was non-residential building, dismissed the application. Aggrieved thereby, the landlord has come up in this petition under section 15 of the said Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner has attacked the impugned order on the ground that the finding of the lower appellate court on the nature of the building was not sustainable having been based on inadmissible evidence. To substantiate his argument, he referred to Exhibits R. 1 and R. 2 which according to him had been illegally taken into consideration Exhibit R. 1 is a copy of the application filed by the tenant with the Sales Tax Authorities for renewal of his registration certificate and in that application he has mentioned that his business premises had since been extended and showed the disputed premises as the additional business premises. The averment was made by him because of the requirement of the provisions of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act. In the circumstances it cannot be said that the averment made in the application would inadmissible being an admission in one's own favour. Otherwise also the contents of the application would be admissible under section 13 of the Evidence Act in proof of assertion of title as a tenant. Regarding the other document. Exhibit R. 2, the learned counsel was not able to advance any reason as to why it was inadmissible in advance. It is a copy from the housing-tax assessment register of the Municipal Committee. The document thus being copy of the public record would be admission in evidence. The contention raised by the learned counsel, therefore has no substance As no other ground was urged to challenge the finding of the fact recorded by the Appellate Authority, I find no merit in, this petition and the same is hereby dismissed but without any order as to costs.;