SHAM SUNDER, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 19.5.1995, rendered by the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, vide which it set aside the judgment dated 20.5.1992, rendered by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, and ordered ejectment of the tenant-petitioner, on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that the respondent (petitioner herein) was inducted as a tenant, in the demised shop, bearing No. B-17/2008/2 situated in Basti Abdullapur, Ludhiana, at a monthly rental of Rs. 150/- by Bachan Singh, landlord (respondent herein). The ejectment of the tenant-petitioner, was sought, on the grounds, that he had been in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.4.1976, at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month; that he had committed such acts, as amounted to nuisance, to the occupiers of the neighbouring buildings and that the demised premises were required by the respondent-landlord, for his personal bona fide necessity. In the written statement filed by the respondent (petitioner herein) he admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was stated that the rate of rent in respect of the demised premises was Rs. 80/- per month, and not Rs. 150/- per month. It was further stated that the matter with regard to the rate of rent and payment of arrears of rent was already subjudice, between the parties, in another application, and as such, this ground was no more available to the landlord. The rent from 1.12.1985 to 30.11.1986 along with interest and cost was tendered. It was stated that rent from 1.8.1985 to 30.11.1985, was tendered in the Court of Rent Controller, in another ejectment application. It was further stated that the rent for the remaining period, claimed by the landlord had already been paid to him. The tender made by the tenant, was accepted, under protest, by the landlord. The remaining averments were denied being wrong.
(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the following issues. were struck : 1. Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected from the disputed premises on the grounds mentioned in para No. 2 of the petition ? OPA 2. Whether the petitioner is estopped to take up the plea of personal necessity ? OPR 3. Whether the petition is barred by constructive res judicata ? OPR 4. Whether the petition is mala fide ? OPR 5. Relief. ;