The central legal point established in the judgment is that the landlord's bonafide need for eviction, especially for establishing or extending a business, should be presumed as genuine, and the tenant's denial must be substantiated with proof.

Alok Singh, J.

1. Tenant has invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 15(5) of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 assailing the order dated 8.9.2009 passed by Appellate Authority Patiala, thereby directing the eviction of the tenant on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord having observed that landlord requires the demised property for his personal use and occupation.

2. The brief facts of the present case are that respondent landlord herein preferred an eviction petition under Section 13 of the Act for ejectment of the revisionist-tenant from the demised shop on the ground that tenant has neither paid nor tendered the rent of the demised shop since 1.4.2005 till the date of filing of eviction petition, despite repeated demands; landlord bonafidely requires the shop for his personal use and occupation as he intends to run a business of Karyana Merchant in the same after vacating from the tenant. Revisionist had refuted the claim of the landlord-respondent by way of filing written statement.

3. Before the Rent Controller entire rent was tendered on the first date of hearing hence, learned rent Controller has dismissed the eviction petitioner having observed that tenant is not in arrears of any rent. Learned Rent Controller in paragraph No. 20 of the judgment observed as under:-

20. The Learned counsel for the respondent further contended that keeping in view admission of AW-1 Sushil Kumar who is running huge business in the name of Sewa Gram Udyog Society, Shri Krishna Spintek Limited, Commission Agent Business and as such it is impossible to believe that petitioner requires demised shop to run business of Karyana Merchants in the same. But I am of the considered view even if a person is running a thousand business, but he has got the right to expand the same and to run any other business of his choice. However, pregnant silence of the part of the petitioner to explain his ownership of different properties situated within municipal limits, stated to be HUF property and non disclosing the income tax details leads to the conclusion that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands by explaining the fact that he has no other shop except demised shop within the municipal limits of Samana.

4. Feeling aggrieved from the judgment passed by Rent Controller dated 19.11.2008, statutory appeal was filed by the landlord which was registered as RA. No. 34/13.1.2009. Learned Appellate Authority allowed the appeal vide impugned order dated 8.9.2009 having observed that bonafide necessity is to be seen from the landlord to get the shop vacated for his personal use and occupation; it is not to be considered that why landlord has to start the business of Karyana Merchant. It is for the landlord to do so.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

6. Learned counsel for the tenant-revisionist vehemently argued that landlord is having so many businesses at different places, hence, he has absolutely no need to start Karyana business in the shop in dispute. Learned counsel for the revisionist-tenant further argued that landlord is having 14 other shops in the same city and all those shops are HUF properties and in some of the shops father and brothers of the landlord are doing business and landlord has not disclosed the details of all those shops, hence, Rent Controller has rightly dismissed the eviction petition having observed that landlord has not approached learned Rent Controller with clean hands and has concealed about the existence of other shops owned by HUF. Learned counsel for the revisionist further argued that Appellate Authority has not reversed the finding of the Rent Controller on the question that landlord has concealed the existence of other shops owned by HUF and has not given details thereof.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent-landlord has vehemently argued that Rent Controller as well as first Appellate Court have observed thatev