Hemant Gupta, J.

1. The respondent-landlord has filed an ejectment petition against the petitioner-tenant in September, 1991 to seek his ejectment in-teralia on account of non-payment of rent and cease to occupy etc. However, the landlord amended the ejectment petition in July, 1998 to seek the eviction of the tenant on the ground that the landlord requires the premises for his own use and occupation. It was pleaded that, the present premises in occupation of the landlord are insufficient for accommodating the doctors, in-door patients, laboratories, other staff members and the building in question is required by the petitioner for its hospital. The number of indoor and outdoor patients is about 500 per day and the present building in its possession is most insufficient. The landlord also pleaded that it has not vacated any premises after the enactment of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The landlord sought amendment of the petition after the Honble Supreme Court set aside the amendment in the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, whereby the right to evict the tenant from non-residential building on account of bona fide personal use and occupation in an judg