Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended, that occupation of shop No.199 Sector 37-C, Chandigarh, could not be pleaded, as it was taken on rent after the filing of the eviction petition. This was proved to be wrong, as the tenant in the written statement made specific reference to the premises to be in occupation of the landlords, however, in the replication no such explanation was given. Learned senior counsel also justified the non-mentioning of Bay Shop No.392 Sector 44-D by pleading therein, that the shop was resumed due to misuse, by the Chandigarh Administration but it was in view of injunction granted by the learned court that the possession of the premises was retained. It is not in dispute that order of resumption has been finally set aside. Words used in Section 13 of the Rent Act is not ownership, but occupation. Bay Shop No.392 sector 44, therefore, was in occupation of the landlords and he had even applied for licence to run his business, which was also granted to him on 27.8.1995. The contentions of the learned senior counsel, therefore, deserved to be noticed, to be rejected.
