- (1.) RESPONDENT had filed the petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 ('Act' for short) seeking ejectment of the petitioner from the premises in question. Case of the respondent, as per the ejectment petition, in brief, was that he was owner/landlord of the premises in question. The premises in question had been rented out to the petitioner at a monthly rent of Rs. 400/ - besides house tax at the rate of 15% per annum. Rent note was executed between the parties on 11.2.1984. However, the petitioner had failed to pay rent with effect from 10.3.2006. Petitioner had changed the user of the shop in question. The premises in question had been rented out to the petitioner for running the business of repair and sale of watches whereas he had opened up a P.C.O. and had started the business of repair of mobile phones without the consent of the landlord. It was further prayed that the premises in question was required by the landlord to enable his unemployed son Amritpal Singh to run his business in the premises in question.
(2.) PETITIONER , in his written statement, admitted the factum of tenancy between the parties and the execution of the rent note in question. However, the other contentions in the ejectment petition, were denied.
(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Rent Controller: - 1. Whether respondent is in arrears of rent? OPA 2. Whether respondent has changed the user of the tenancy premises? OPA 3. Whether tenancy premises is bonafidely required to petitioner and his son? OPA 4. Whether present petition is not maintainable? OPR 5. Relief. Rent Controller vide order dated 25.4.2013 allowed the ejectment petition on the grounds of change of user and personal necessity. Aggrieved against the said order, petitioner preferred an appeal. The Appellate Authority vide judgment dated 25.1.2014, party allowed the appeal. Hence, the present petition by the petitioner -tenant.;