Judgment

KULDIP SINGH, J.

(1) THE East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (the Act) prior to 1956 - permitted a landlord to evict his tenant from a non-residential building on the ground of bona fide requirement for his own use, however, the said right of the landlord was taken away by the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1956 (Punjab Act 29 of 1956 (the Amendment) which came into force on 24/9/1956. Before us the constitutional validity of the Amendment has been challenged. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Amendment was dismissed by the Punjab and Haryana High court in limine. This appeal, by way of special leave, is against the order of the High court.

(2) THE non-residential premises in dispute was given on rent by the appellants father to the predecessor-in-interest of Respondent 2. After the death of appellants father in the year 1953 the appellant, who was in government service, became the owner of the shop. The appellant retired from service in 1986. According to the appellant he is a Registered Medical Practitioner under the Homeopathic system of medicine. While he was in service his employer granted him permission in 1976 to practise as Homeopath Physician after office hours. It is the case of the appellant that he intends to start practice as Homeopath Physician and for that purpose he bona fide requires the shop in dispute for his personal use and occupation.

(3) THE relevant provisions of the Act prior to the amendment were as under:

"13. Eviction of Tenants.-

* * *

(3 (a) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-