His appeal, however, failed since the appellate companyrt companyfirmed all the findings made by the Rent Controller.
It is this decree which is challenged before us by the appellant in the present appeal.
On these findings the application made by respondent I for evicting the appellant was dismissed.
Respondent I then appealed to the District Court against the said decision.
613 of 1958, arising out of the Judgment and order dated the August 19,1958 of the District Judge, Gurgaon, in Civil Appeal No.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated August 7,1959 of the Punjab High Court in Civil Revision No.
This appellate decision was challenged by respondent I by his revisional application in the High Court of Punjab at Chandigarh.
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Civil Appeal No.
Respondent 1 purchased the shop on June 15, 1956, and soon thereafter he applied to the Rent Controller for the eviction of the appellant under s. 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 3 of 1949 hereinafter called the Act .
In respect of the last plea raised by respondent I about the rebuilding of the shop the appellate companyrt observed that respondent I had got the plan approved and had also got the sanction from the Municipal Committee to re companystruct the building so as to be able to make a ground for getting the appellant ejected from the shop.
The High Court companyfirmed the findings of the companyrts below on the first three pleas raised by respondent The last plea raised by respondent 1, however, was upheld by the High Court with the result that the revisional application preferred by respondent I was allowed and his claim for evicting the appellant was decreed.
In regard to the plea that the respondent wanted to reconstruct the shop the Rent Controller found that the evidence adduced by respondent 1 in support of the said plea had been created as a camouflage and that the said plea was a false pretext to obtain the eviction of the appellant.
The Rent Controller upheld the companytentions of the appellant and rejected all the pleas made by respondent 1.
S. Bindra and P. C. Aggarwala, for the appellant.
Achhru Ram and K. P. Gupta, for respondent No.
524 of 1959.
Before the written statement was filed by the appellant on November 14, 1956, the Act was amended by amending Act 29 of 1956 on September 24, 1956.
14/14 of 1958.
This claim was resisted by the appellant who disputed the companyrectness and the validity of all the pleas taken by respondent 1.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. This appeal by special leave arises from ejectment proceedings taken by Suraj Bhan respondent 1 against the appellant Moti Ram in respect of a shop situated in the urban area of Gurgaon which has been in the occupation of the appellant as a tenant for more than twenty years on a monthly rental of Rs.
This application was based on four grounds.
1960 February 3.
