East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, (III of 1949) Section 13(a) – Bona fide requirement – Appellate Court reversed order of ejection on the ground that – One of the shops owned by the landlord, the tenant was evicted on the ground of bona fide requirement of a business being started, but no business was started even after a period of two years thereafter – Landlords advisedly did not go into the witness box because they suppressed the fact that 50% of a commercial property was purchased during the pendency of the petition – High Court reversed the order in Revisional jurisdiction – The High Court in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction acted as a second Court of first appeal, re-appraised the facts, and without adverting to the grounds mentioned by the lower Appellate Court merely cited the mantra that it is well settled that the landlord is the best person to decide about his need – Apex Court has repeatedly held that in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, unless a finding is perverse, there can be no interference in revision – Order set aside – Ejectment set aside.
Subscribe to read Headnote and Judgment
