PAWAN KUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. MAMAN KUMAR AND OTHERS
LAWS(P&H)-2008-12-256
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on December 09,2008

Pawan Kumar and Others Appellant
VERSUS
MAMAN KUMAR AND OTHERS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 11.9.2008 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Muktsar by which the appeal of the respondents/landlords arising out of the proceedings initiated pursuant to the provisions of Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act was accepted.
(2.) The respondents preferred the eviction petition on the following grounds :- a) That the respondents are in arrears of rent from 1.1.1980 till date along with interest on the amount of arrears of rent and they are also liable to pay house tax @ 15% per annum for the period. b) That the petitioners require the demised shop for their own use and occupation as the petitioners who are unemployed and not doing any work, intend to start their own business of shoe making including making and selling of Jutties in the demised premises. Petitioner No.3 is Roshan Lal who was previously Central Govt. employee serving as J.S.T.(Junior Supervisor Traffic) in the Department of Telecommunication (Telephone) retired from service on 31.3.1995. Petitioner No.1 Maman Kumar was previously employed as Upper Division Clerk in Punjab State Electricity Board, Muktsar and he has retired on 30.9.02 after completing his age of 58 years and petitioner No.2 Puran Chand is also unemployed and not doing any work at present and they intend to start the business of shoes and jutties making and selling them from the demised shop which is situated in Jutti Bazar to support their families. They already know this profession of shoe making specially Jutti making as they belong to Chamar caste family and this is their ancestral profession and their father was also expert in this profession. c) The petitioners are not occupying any shop in the urban area concerned for the purpose of their business either on rent or in any capacity. d) The petitioners have not vacated any such building or rental land or building without sufficient cause after the commencement of this act in the Urban Area concerned."
(3.) The petitioners refuted the contentions of the respondents.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.