KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. - (1.) Kuldip Singh had filed an eviction petition against tenant Roshan Singh, who is carrying on the business of Tailor from the shop owned by the landlord. The rate of rent was Rs. 200/- per month. It was pleaded in the eviction petition that landlord was a skilled labourer in the Municipal Corporation, Patiala. He retired from the services on 31.7.2001. It was pleaded in the ejectment petition that the shop is required for personal use and occupation as the landlord intended to start business of repairing electric goods as Electrician. Landlord also intended to settle his son Tarandeep Singh who had completed the apprenticeship of Air Conditioner repair. Necessary ingredients that no other shop is owned or possessed or has been vacated were pleaded in the eviction petition.
(2.) NOTICE of the eviction petition has been issued. Tenant appeared. He stated that rent has been paid upto February 2002. No amount of rent is due. He denied that he is liable to pay house tax. Preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the petition and the petition has not been verified in consonance with the High Court Rules and Orders, have been raised. He further stated that the parties are bound by compromise/agreement dated 10.6.1988 Ex.CX. Relationship of landlord and tenant and rate of rent has been admitted. On merits, it was denied that the landlord was a skilled labourer in the Municipal Corporation or he retired from the services on 31.7.2001. Personal need of the landlord for settling his son Tarandeep Singh, who wanted to start the business of repair of Air Conditioners, was also denied.
(3.) REPLICATION was filed, in which averments made in the eviction petition were reiterated and that of written statement were denied. Thereafter, learned Rent Controller framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the respondent has not paid arrears of rent, interest and house tax, if so, its effect? OPP 2. Whether petitioner is in personal necessity of the tenanted premises? OPP 3. Whether petitioner is entitled for possession after ejectment of respondent ? OPP 4. Whether petition is not maintainable ? OPR;