- (1.) The tenant claimed restoration of the possession under sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act on the ground that the landlord had not occupied the house for a continuous period of twelve months. Admittedly the possession from the tenant was taken on 28th of May, 1963. According to the landlord he went to occupy the house in September, 1963, and lived there for few months and then vacated the house because it required extensive repairs including the change of a roof. According to him, he shifted to the house of his brother-in-law and after the house had been repaid he again shifted there. The question whether under sub-section 4 of Section 13 of the Act, the landlord, who obtained the possession of any building on the ground of personal requirement, must necessarily occupy the premises for at least 12 months continuously after he takes possession was referred to and decided by a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Revision No. 453 of 1960 (Lal Chand v. Dr. Jai Bhagwan Sarup) decided on 2nd of February, 1962. Mr. Justice Daulat, delivering the judgment on behalf of the Bench, in the first instance referred to an earlier Single Bench decision in Sultani Mal v. Kulwant Rai,1959 PurLR 595. Held that, right from 28th of May, 1963, when the possession was obtained from tenant up to the date of the present application, that is 14th of January, 1965 and indeed even thereafter, there is no suggestion that the landlord parted with the possession of the house to anyone. It was not let out to anybody nor was even temporary occupation given to anybody. The sole contention on behalf of the tenant was that in fact, the landlord did not physically occupy the house. The evidence on the record leaves no manner of the doubt that, as has been found by the learned Appellate Authority, extensive repairs had in fact to be done to the house including the change of a roof. When the landlord gets possession of a premises on the ground that he needs it for his own use, the law does not impose on him the obligation that immediately thereafter, he must physically shift into it. All that is important is that he must "occupy it" for a continuous period of twelve months. Held further that :- If the landlord is actually effecting the repairs, he must be deemed to be occupying it himself. If he places lock on the house, even then he will be deemed to be occupying it. In fact so long as he does not part with the possession to anybody, the possession must be deemed to be his. The idea behind sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act is that if a landlord gets possession from a tenant on the ground that he needs it for himself, he should not part with its possession to anyone else for at least a period of twelve month and if he does not so part that will be deemed to be proof of his bonafide requirement.;