189, Sector 11 A, Chandigarh which is in a residential area in an auction in 1990, raised a companystruction on that plot which is 500 Sq.
The eviction application was dismissed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, against which an appeal was taken before the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, which was allowed by its order dated 14th of August, 2001.
Against this order of the Appellate Authority, the respondent filed a revision petition before the High Court and by the impugned Judgment of the High Court, the eviction petition of the appellant was dismissed and the order of the Rent Controller, Chandigarh was restored.
hereinafter referred to as the demised premises .
Relying on two decisions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, namely, Sudarshan Kumari vs. Anand Kumar Khemka 1985 2 RCJ 590 and Ms. Kamla Khanna Vs.
Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has filed this Special Leave Petition, which on grant of leave, was heard in presence of the learned companynsel for the parties.
4735 of 2001 by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh wherein the High Court had allowed the revision petition and set aside the judgment passed by the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh which had set aside the judgment and order of the Rent Controller, Chandigarh rejecting the application for eviction filed by the landlord appellant hereinafter referred to as the appellant The appellant, who had purchased the House No.
The tenant respondent hereinafter referred to as the respondent , according to the appellant, without the companysent and permission of the appellant, started companymercial activities in the demised premises from December 1994.
As numbered herein earlier, the High Court, in Revision, had set aside the order of the Appellate Authority and restored the order of the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, rejecting the application for eviction filed by the appellant.
The appellant filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 hereinafter referred to as the Act , for eviction of the respondent from the demised premises on the ground that although the demised premises was let out for residential purposes, the respondent had, without the companysent and permission of the appellant, started using it for companymercial use.
As numbered herein earlier, this order of the Rent Controller was reversed by the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, inter alia, on the findings that number production of Rent Note and number appearance of the landlord appellant in the witness box companyld number be taken to be a ground for rejecting the eviction application.
TARUN CHATTERJEE, J. Leave granted.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 1st of November, 2006 passed in Civil Revision Case No.
As the appellant has settled in U.K., his father Shri Mange Ram, who is a permanent resident of India, had inducted the respondent as a tenant in a part of the residential premises for residential use in the month of April, 1994.
