- (1.)The petitioners impugn the order dated 5.4.2013 passed by the learned Appellate Court accepting the rent petition preferred by the respondents/landlords seeking eviction of the petitioners under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The eviction of the petitioners was sought on the ground of nonpayment of rent and personal necessity. Since the rent had been paid, that issue was rendered redundant leaving the court to examine the issue of personal Dass Ghanshnyaemcessity.
(2.)The learned Rent Controller rejected the plea of the respondents/landlord, but in appeal, the findings were reversed. Referring to the personal necessity and bonafide need, learned counsel for the respondents has stated that respondent No.1 had retired as a Superintending Engineer from the Construction Circle of the P.W.D.(B&R Branch) and thus intended to set up a business for himself in the demised premises which were now in occupation of the petitioners.
(3.)The solitary point that requires to be determined in this case centres around the need of the respondents and whether it is genuine or not.