- (1.) Wasdev Singh petitioner, had obtained an order of eviction again the Kundan Lal respondent under sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (a) Sub-Section 3 of Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, in respect of the rented land situate at Jullundur and obtained the possession of the same on 29.10.1973. Kundan Lal respondent applied to the Rent Controller,Jullundur, for the restoration of possession of the land in dispute on 31.10.1974, alleging that the landlord had failed to occupy the premises from 29.10.73 to 30.10.1974 and, therefore, under the provisions of Section 13 (4) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, he was entitled to get back the possession. Kundan Lal also alleged that Wasdev Singh has not constructed any building over the plot in dispute nor has occupied it for his own use. In reply Wasdev Singh pleaded that he is in possession of the premises in dispute since 29.10.1973, that he removed the dilapidated sheds, constructed a wall round the plot and also fixed his sign board on it. He further averred that he is in consultations with the building engineer and architect, for raising a construction over the plot in dispute.
(2.) The following issues were framed by the Rent Controller :- 1. Whether the petitioner Kundan Lal is entitled to the restoration of the possession of the property in dispute on the grounds mentioned in the petition OPA. 2. Relief. The Rent Controller held that Wasdev Singh had failed to occupy the premises in dispute for carrying out his legal practice within a period of 12 months without any reason and, therefore, passed an order for restoration of the possession of the disputed premises to Kundan Lal. Wasdev Singh filed an appeal against the order of the Rent Controller but the Appellate Authority, Jullundur, dismissed the same. Being aggrieved with the order of the Appellate Authority, Jullundur, Wasdev Singh had filed this civil revision.
(3.) It is not disputed that the premises in dispute was a rented land. A landlord can apply to the Rent Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession in the case of rented land if : (a) he requires it for his own use ; (b) he is not occupying in the urban area concerned for the purpose of his business any other such rented land ; and (c) he has not vacated such rented land without sufficient cause after the commencement of this Act, in the urban area concerned. Wasdev Singh appellant, obtained the order of ejectment of Kundan Lal respondent as he required the land in dispute for his own use. Wasdev Singh got the possession of the disputed land on 29.10.1973. His case is that after getting possession of the disputed land, he demolished the two sheds which were in existence there, that he constructed a boundary wall and had put up his board and that he wanted to construct his house there but on account of shortage of cement and bricks he could not do so.;