That is how the interpretation of this provision mainly arises in, the present appeal.
The original owner of the land became an evacuee, and eventually the respondent purchased the land from the Managing Officer and a sale certificate was issued in his favour on May 31, 1963.
Appeal by special leave from the.judgment and order dated July 15, 1966 of the Punjab High Court in Civil Revision 1077 of 1966.
It was of the view that it was open to the landlord to get a tenant ejected from rented land under s. 13 3 a ii whatever may be the purpose for which the landlord required the land for his own use.
It is number in dispute that the land in question is rented land within the meaning of s. 2 f of the Act inasmuch as the land was taken by the appellant for the purpose of a firewood stall.
The appellant was the tenant of certain land at Lahori Gate, Patiala.
Thereupon the appellant obtained special leave, and that is how the matter has companye up before us.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
It is this ground with which we are mainly companycerned in the present appeal.
L. Chhiber and M. L. Chhiber, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Wanchoo, J. The main question raised in this appeal by spe cial leave from the judgment of the Punjab High Court is the interpretation of s. 13 3 a ii of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, No.
The case of the appellant on the other hand was that even if the respondent required the land for companystruction of a residential house he companyld number be given an order of ejectment under s. 13 3 a ii .
Gopal Singh, for the appellant.
The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal.
The appellant then went in revision to the High Court which upheld the view taken by the Appellate Authority and dismissed the revision.
One of the grounds in support of the claim for ejectment was that the respondent needed the land for erection of a residential house.
2009 of 1966.
The appellant thus became the respondents tenant.
Brief facts necessary for determination of this question are these.
The respondent then went in appeal to the Appellate Autho rity.
III of 1949, hereinafter referred to as the Act .
Thereafter the respondent filed an application for the ejectment of the appellant on a number of grounds.
