Law:

Section:

An application under section 17(4)(b) of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, XI of 1963, filed by the respondent-landlord for a direction to the appellant to put him in possession of the shop in dispute on the ground of his persona) need, was resisted by the tenant -appellant on the plea also that it was barred under section 23 of the Act in so far as a petition earlier filed by the appellant on the same ground had been dismissed and this fresh petition raising substantially the same issue was liable to be' summarily rejected. In this behalf, explanation of the respondent-landlord is that since in his earlier petition, he had not pleaded either that there was no other property in his possession suitable for his needs or even that his disability of being hard of hearing had impelled him to the conclusion that he could not establish in the legal profession, therefore, his petition was dismissed by the Controller and appeal filed by him having also failed, he instituted Writ Petition No. 114 of 1984 which was withdrawn by him for filing a fresh petition by urging the aforesaid two pleas, which had been omitted to be taken in the earlier petition.   Pleadings of the parties gave rise to only two issues; first, relating to the bar under section 23 of the Act and the second, with regard to the respondent's need in good faith of the shop for his personal use. Learned Controller decided both the issues in favour of the landlord-respondent. He concluded that since he had been allowed by the High Court to file the present petition, therefore, it is not barred under the law. Under issue No.2, although he noticed the fact that the respondent had "not provided any scientific data of clientage/ income over the last few years which could show clearly the relationship of his physical disability and his alleged failure in the legal profession", yet, he was impressed by the undertaking given by the respondent- landlord to surrender his licence to practice as an Advocate upon his taking possession of the shop in dispute and also by the reason that if he did not start his own business, as had been pleaded by him, the tenant would have a right to take back…