VINOD K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE landlord petitioner by way of present revision petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the learned Rent Controller as well as by the Appellate Authority dismissing the petition filed by him under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (for short the 'Act') seeking eviction of the respondent-tenant.
(2.) THE petitioner sought eviction of the respondent-tenant on the ground that the respondent was a tenant in the shop in dispute on a monthly rent of Rs. 125/-. It was claimed that the respondent was in arrears of rent and the petitioner required the shop in dispute for his personal use and occupation. It was further claimed that the petitioner did not own or possess any other shop within the Municipal limits of Hoshiarpur nor he has vacated any shop after the commencement of the Act. It was also claimed that the petitioner was running business of Bardana in a rented shop at New Sabzi Mandi, Hoshiarpur where he was paying a monthly rent of Rs. 1,050/-. It is also averred that as per stipulation in the agreement the rent is required to be increased by Rs. 25/- per year. It was further claimed that the shop in dispute is old one and is unfit for human habitation. The whole of the roof is leaking and cracks have developed. It was also claimed that the shop requires reconstruction from top to bottom and the petitioner wants to run his business after reconstruction of the demised shop. The petition was contested by the respondent-tenant in which a preliminary objection was taken to the effect that the site plan attached with the petition was incorrect. However, the relationship of the landlord and tenant was admitted. It was also admitted that the rent of the shop in dispute was Rs. 125/-. It was claimed that a sum of Rs. 625/- was deposited as rent w.e.f. 1.4.1998 to 31.8.1998. It was denied that the shop was required for personal requirement. The stand of the respondent-tenant was that the petitioner was running bardana store at New Sabzi Mandi, Hoshiarpur, which was very suitable place for his business. It was also claimed that the shop was in good condition. The stand of the respondent-tenant was that a case under Section 12 of the Act was filed for repair of the tiles in which the petitioner had taken a stand that the shop was in a good condition.
(3.) AFTER filing of the replication, the learned Rent Controller was pleased to frame the following issues :- "1. Whether the respondent is liable to be evicted from the demised premises on the ground of non-payment of rent, as alleged ? OPA 2. Whether the applicant requires the shop in question for his personal use and occupation ? OPA 3. Whether the demised premises have become unfit and unsafe for human habitation ? OPA 4. Whether the application is not maintainable in the present form ? OPA 5. Whether the site plan attached by the applicant with this application is not correct ? OPA 6. Relief." ;