- (1.) Only two points have been raised in this petition under section 15(5) of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act. The first point is that the tenants should have been served with the notice regarding termination of the tenancy under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. It is not disputed that the tenancy was created for a period of 11 months only and after the efflux of this period the status of the petitioner became that of a statutory tenant. In Bhiaya Ram Hargo Lal v. Mahavir Parshad Murari Lal Mahajan, 1969 AIR(P&H) 110, it has been held that no notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act need be given for terminating such a tenancy. This point is, therefore, decided against the petitioner.
(2.) The second point raised is that the landlady did not require this portion of the house for a bonafide personal need. Again on this point there is a statement of Shri Kidar Nath, husband of the landlary to the effect that he was serving in Delhi from where he has retired. His wife along with him and the college going son, and two daughters want to shift to Jullundur for which purpose the premises in dispute are needed by the landlady. The learned Appellate Authority has rightly accepted this evidence. In any event, if the landlady does not come to reside in the premises in dispute continuously for a period of one year, it would be open to the petitioner to claim that he should be put in possession of this property. There is no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.;