SHAM SUNDER, J. - (1.) THIS instant revision petition, has been preferred, by the tenant-petitioner, against the judgment dated 2.5.1990, rendered by the Appellate Authority (District Judge, Faridkot) vide which the judgment dated 26.8.1987, rendered by the Rent Controller, Moga, was set aside and the ejectment of the tenant, was ordered, on the ground, that he had ceased to occupy the demised premises, without any sufficient cause, for a continuous period of four months, immediately preceding the filing of the ejectment petition.
(2.) PREM Nath was inducted, as a tenant, in the demised premises, as fully detailed, in the ejectment petition, at a monthly rental of Rs. 210/-. The ejectment of the tenant, was sought, from the demised premises, on the grounds that he had been in arrears of rent since 1.4.1974, and that he had ceased to occupy the same, without any sufficient cause, for a continuous period of four months, immediately preceding the filing of the ejectment petition. On the failure of the tenant, to vacate the demised premises, the ejectment application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be called as the 'Act' only)was filed. The tenant, put in appearance, and filed written statement wherein, he took up various objections, and contested the petition. It was pleaded that the site plan furnished by the landlord, was not correct. It was further pleaded that since the ejectment petition earlier filed, by the landlord, was dismissed by the Rent Controller, the subsequent ejectment petition was not maintainable. It was denied that he was inducted, as a tenant, at a monthly rental of Rs. 210/-. On the other hand, it was stated that the rate of rent was Rs. 100/- per month. It was further stated that rent upto 30.5.1984, had already been paid, whereas, the rent from 1.7.1984 to 31.1.1985, was tendered, on the first date of hearing, along with interest, and costs. It was denied that he ceased to occupy the demised premises for a continuous period of four months, without any sufficient cause, immediately preceding the filing of the ejectment petition.
(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were struck : "1. Whether the petitioner rented out the demised shop at Rs. 210/- per month as alleged ? OPA 2. Whether the petitioner is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.4.1974 as alleged ? OPA 3. Whether the shop is lying closed for a continuous period of four months as alleged in para No. 3 ? OPA 4. Relief." ;