S.P.GOYAL, J.

1. This revision under S.15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, called the Act) was referred to a Division Bench to resolve the conflict between the decision in Santokh Singh V/s. M/s. Sat Pal Jayanti Parshad, (1981) 1 Ren CR 465 and two earlier unreported judgements in Civil Revision No. 190 of 1959 (Kapur Singh V/s. Bhagwati Parshad) decided on Sept. 30, 1959 and Civil Revision No. 716 of 1963 (Kaura Ram V/s. Ram Chander) decided on Mar. 5, 1965.

2. The respondent-landlord filed a petition for the ejectment of his tenant, the petitioner, on various grounds, but the one which survives for consideration is as to whether the rented land was required by the former for his own use and occupation. The Rent Controller initially did not record a specific finding on this issue, but on report having been called by the appellate authority, reported that the landlord needs the rented land for the bona fide need of his son Vijay Kumar for starting coal business. This finding having been affirmed by the appellate authority and the ejectment ordered. the tenant has come up in this revision.

3. The principal argument raised, to assail the legalit