A landlord cannot eject a tenant from a non-residential building on the ground of personal necessity under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act.

, J.

1. This Revision Petition has been filed by Ram Sarup Bhalla, the landlord, against order dated March 30.1989, passed by Rent Controller, Ludhiana dismissing his application filed under Sec.13-A, of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act for ejectment of the tenant Barkat Singh, respondent, from a house situated in Nigar Mandi, Ludhiana.

2. The petitioner claimed ejectment of respondent on the ground that he had retired from Government service and wanted to occupy the house, which was with the respondent as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.325/- plus house tax. The petitioner retired from government service on October 31, 1985 from the Education Department. He did not own any other house in Ludhiana and was not occupying any-other house in the urban area Ludhiana. The portion of the house in dispute already in possession with him was insufficient and inadequate. Thus, he required the house in dispute for his own and familys use and occupation. The petitioner wanted to start his law practice at Ludhiana. His son, who has completed LL. B. course also was to settle at Ludhiana. His youngest daughter, a student of B. A. required a room for studies. His wife, a chronic patient of arthitities could not go upstairs, thus, he needed the ground floor.

3. After permission was allowed to the respondent to contest the petition, he denied relationship of landlord and tenant. The house belonged to Raksha Parbhakar daughter of Karam Chand Parbhakar, the petitioner had no title in the property, the property was rented, out for non-residential purposes and could not be got vacated on the alleged ground of personal necessity. The petitioner did not comply with the necessary ingredients of Sec.13 (1) (a) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. The petitioner was estopped by his act and conduct from filing the application for ejectment. The petitioner filed replication inter alia admitting that originally Raksha Parbhakar was the owner, but he claimed that she was married to him and after her death he succeeded to the property left by her. Thus, he was competent to file the application. The following issues were framed on the pleadings of the parties :-

1. Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected from the premises in dispute on the grounds mentioned in the application OPA 2. Whether there exist relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties OPR 3. Relief.

4 Under issue No.2, it was held that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The marriage of the petitioner with Raksha Parbhakar was not proved and it was not established that he was the only heir of Raksha Parbhakar. The present application was not maintainable as oil the same ground earlier application was withdrawn by the petitioner without any permission to file fresh application. It was further held that the premises were let out for the purposes of business and on the alleged ground the ejectment of the tenant could not be ordered. The application was rejected.

5. At the initial stage of this Revision Petition, the petitioner produced photostat copy of letter vide which he was relieved w. e. f. October 31, 1985 on attaining the age of superannuation.

6. During arguments the following four questions have been debated :-

- (1) No issue was framed by the Court as there was no plea that earlier the petitioner had filed an application on the same ground which was withdrawn without permission to file fresh application. This point according to the counsel for the petitioner could not be taken into consideration merely on the basis of some admission made by the petitioner while appearing as a witness. (2) The Rent Controller wrongly held that the premises were let out for business purposes. In fact, it is a residential house and the petitioner, who is a specified landlord was entitled to the possession of the same as be was retired from Government service. (3) Certificate of retirement was in fact filed along with the applicatio