S.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. Is the requirement of personal use and occupation by the landlord under sub-set (3) (a) (i) a distinct and separate cause of action from that of non-payment of rent under sub-sec (2) (i) for the eviction of the tenant as prescribed by Sec.13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - has come to the fore as the spinal question in this reference to the Full Bench.

2. Harnam Singly the petitioner landlord had originally on the 7th of March, 1973 brought an application for the ejectment of the respondent-tenant on the ground of the non-payment of rent. This application was disposed of by the order Exhibit R-5. A perusal of the said order would show that therein no other ground including the one for personal use and occupation was taken by the petitioner-landlord.

3. Later on the 15th of April, 1974, tune petitioner-landlord preferred a fresh application on the ground inter-alia that the respondent-tenant was in arrears of rent and the premises in dispute were required by the applicant bona fide for his own use and occupation. On notice of the said application, the respondent-tenant appeared and tendered in Court the amount for which he was all