JUDGMENT

R.C. Lahoti, J.-Leave granted.

An eviction petition filed by the landlord-respondent urging the ground for eviction under Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter the Act, for short), was dismissed by the Rent Controller but allowed by the Appellate Authority. The decree has been maintained in civil revision preferred by the tenant in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. The tenant has filed this appeal by special leave.

2. The finding of fact arrived at, and immune from challenge before this Court, is that the suit premises situated on the ground floor of the building owned by the landlord respondent is in occupation of the tenant-appellant for non-residential purpose. The same is required by the landlord-respondent for the office of his son who is a chartered accountant residing with the landlord-respondent. On 31.8.2001 Shri. S.P. Upadhyay, the learned counsel for the appellant placed forceful reliance on a Division Bench decision of the High Court in Ravinder Kumar Pujara vs. Gian Chand - AIR 1987 Punjab & Haryana 31 and successfully persuaded this Court to issue notice limited to the question whether the requirement of chart