UJAGAR SINGH,J - (1.) THE landlord-respondent filed an application for ejectment, as a specified landlord u/s 13A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, of the tenant revision-petitioner from a portion of house No. 2042, measuring 35' x 38', comprising of a room and a compound, with the boundaries mentioned therein. The tenant filed an application on 22.5.1987, seeking leave to contest the ejectment application moved by the landlord. The landlord-applicant alleged that he was retiring from the Central Government service with effect from 29.2.1988 and certificate of retirement was attached. The need for eviction was that he wanted the demised premises for his personal use and occupation, as he had no other house at Rajpura. The petitioner tenant has put up a ground that the premises in dispute are being used as a workshop by him and it was not a residential building or a scheduled building. He also challenged the landlord to be a specified landlord.
(2.) AFTER hearing arguments, the learned Rent Controller refused permission to the tenant-petitioner to contest the application. Against that order of refusal of permission, the revision petition has been preferred by the tenant. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that even in the year 1971-72, the revision-petitioner was running a furniture workshop and in an ejectment dispute, at appellate stage, the Appellate Authority, Patiala, after perusing rent note Ex. A1, produced in the ejectment proceedings, held that initially the entire house in question had been let out by the son-in-law of the landlord to the tenant. Thereafter some petitions of the tenancy premises were surrendered by the tenant and rent was reduced, again, it has been held that the premises in question were used by the tenant for running a furniture workshop and never used by him for residential purposes. The landlord had pleaded ignorance about this fact, whether the premises were given for residential purpose or for running a furniture workshop. The observations of the learned Rent Controller in the ejectment proceedings were referred to and therein, it was held that there was overwhelming evidence that the premises in question, from its very inception, were being used for running the workshop. The tenant was ultimately held to have not changed the purpose for which the premises in question were given to him. In view of these allegations, a reference to the previous litigation is necessary to give a proper finding on the plea and that can be done only after permission is granted. Copy of the judgment in the earlier litigation was attached with application and the Rent Controller has not even referred to that judgment. There is no doubt that the intention of the Legislature was to provide a remedy of eviction of tenant at the earliest date. An application u/s 18A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act is to be disposed of by judicial discretion. The order refusing permission was passed on 2.6.1987 and the tenant was directed to deliver vacant possession on or before 29.2.1988. This revision was filed on 10.7.1987 and admitted on 16.12.1987. Had the necessary permission been granted, the whole litigation, even on merits, would have been finished by now.
(3.) THIS revision petition is, therefore, accepted and refusal of permission is set aside. The tenant is granted permission to defend the eviction application under Section 13A of the Act. No order as to costs.;