SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. - (1.) THIS is tenant's revision petition against the order of ejectment passed against him in a petition filed under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
(2.) IN this case, the demised premises is a 7-1/2 marlas residential house situated in Sector 18, Chandigarh. The said house is owned by the respondent and his wife. The respondent-landlord filed the aforesaid ejectment application being a specified landlord on the ground of personal necessity on 12.4.2001 under Section 13-A of the Act. Additionally, the landlord also sought ejectment on the ground that the tenant was in arrears of rent with effect from 1.1.1997 till the date of filing of the ejectment petition. However, the ejectment of the petitioner was ordered on the ground of personal necessity being specified landlord. Before the Rent Controller, the petitioner contested the petition on issue No. 1 i.e. whether the respondent was a specified landlord or not, though the issue No. 2 regarding bona fide requirement of the demised premises by the respondent for his personal use and occupation was not pressed. Vide order dated 6.8.2003, the Rent Controller, Chandigarh allowed the ejectment petition filed by the respondent. On issue No. 1 it was held that the respondent is a specified landlord. On issue No. 2, it was found that the demised premises is bona fidely required by the respondent for his personal use and occupation as well as for his other family members.
(3.) FEELING aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed Civil Revision No. 4774 of 2003. The contention of the petitioner regarding maintainability of the composite petition by the landlord claiming eviction of the tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent as well as on the ground of personal necessity, being a specified landlord under Section 13-A of the Act, was held to be not survived on the concession given by the counsel for the landlord that he gave up the ground of non-payment of rent for seeking the ejectment of the tenant. Regarding the ground of ejectment for personal requirement being a specified landlord under Section 13-A of the Act, counsel for the petitioner did not assail the finding recorded by the Rent Controller on issue No. 1 i.e. the respondent was found to be a specified landlord. The only contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner was that the Rent Controller did not record any finding with regard to issue No. 2 i.e. whether the landlord requires the premises in question for his bona fide use as residence or not. Though the counsel for the tenant did not press this issue before the Rent Controller but this Court observed that the Rent Controller should have recorded the finding in terms of Section 13-A of the Act to the effect that the specified landlord requires the premises in question for his personal bona fide necessity. On that account, the order of the Rent Controller was set aside by this Court vide order dated 8.3.2004 and the matter was remanded to the Rent Controller with a direction to finally dispose of the proceedings within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties.;