- (1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act dated 8th January, 1975, whereby the appeal of the tenant against the Rent Controller's order dated 16th August, 1973, was dismissed with costs.
(2.) The respondent, Madan Lal, filed an application under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act claiming eviction of the petitioner, Romesh Kumar, on the following three grounds : (i) That the tenant had materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises; (ii) That the premises are required for the landlord's use and occupation; and (iii) That the rent had not been paid. The petition was contested, and on the pleadings of the parties the Rent Controller framed the following issues : 1. Whether the tender is valid ? 2. Whether the respondent has materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises ? 3 Whether the petitioner requires the demised premises for his personal use and occupation ? 4. Whether the respondent is a great nuisance to the applicant as well as to the neighbours in the locality ? If eo, to what effect ? 5. Whether valid notice was served upon the respondent ? Excepting issue No. 3, all other issues were decided either in favour of the tenant or against the landlord, and consequently in view of the findings on Issue No. 3, the application of the landlord was allowed. The learned Rent Controller found that the premises were required by the landlord for his own use and occupation and this finding was upheld by tie Appellate Authority.
(3.) In revision before me the findings of the lower Courts have been assailed before me by Mr. Bhagirath Dass, the learned counsel for the petitioner.;