The landlord has the right to seek eviction of tenants sequentially, and the tenant cannot dictate the landlord's need.

Mahesh Grover, J.

1. This revision petition is directed against judgment dated 8.1.2010 passed by the Appellate Authority, Fast Track Court, Ludhianawhereby the appeal of Amrik Singh (since deceased and now represented byhis legal representatives, i.e., respondent Nos. 1 to 3) was accepted, thejudgment dated 4.3.2009 of the Rent Controller,Ludhiana was set aside andthe petitioners along with proforma respondent No. 4 were ordered to handover the vacant possession of the suit property to the appellant within three months.

2. Amrik Singh filed an application under Section 13 of the EastPunjab Urban Rent Restriction Act,1949 (for short, `the Act) against thepetitioners and proforma respondent No. 4 for their ejectment from thedemised premises on the grounds of non-payment of rent and personalnecessity which was stated to be setting up of an electronics shop for hisson.

3. The petitioners and proforma respondent No. 4, upon notice, appeared and denied the personal need of the landlord by way of filing a written statement. It was pleaded that the landlord had initiated eviction proceedings against other tenants on the similar ground. In so far as the non payment of rent was concerned, it was averred that the same has been tendered and accepted by the landlord.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues :-

1. Whether the respondents are in arrears of rent ? OPP

2. Whether the premises in question are required for bona fide need of the petitioner ? OPP

3. Relief.

5. After appraisal of the evidence led by the parties, the Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment application.

6. Feeling aggrieved, Amrik Singh had preferred an appeal which was accepted by the Appellate Authority resulting in the filing of the instant revision petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside as the landlord had no bona fide need. She further contended that the landlord owned other shops adjoining the demised premises qua which ejectment proceedings were initiated by him on the similar ground and the tenants therein were got evicted, but those shops were not utilized for the said purpose. She made a reference to the site plan Exhibit PW2/1 to contend that the landlord did not require the demised premises because the same are sandwiched between the shops which were occupied by Kewal Krishan and M/S General Electronics who have since been got evicted and had he any bona fide need qua the same, he would have initiated eviction proceedings simultaneously.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 contended that the shops in occupation of Kewal Krishan and M/S GeneralElectronics were got vacated by filing eviction proceedings which wereupheld up to the Honble Supreme Court on the ground of personal necessityof the landlord and since he wanted to set up a business of dealing inelectronics for which more space was required, the ejectment of thepetitioners and proforma respondent No. 4 was sought and the AppellateAuthority has rightly appreciated his need and no fault can be found withthe judgment passed by it. It was further contended that the landlord is abest judge of his need and the tenant cannot dictate him and that the veryfact that he was filing successive ejectment applications against varioustenants showed his bona fide need. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1to 3 submitted that the objection of the petitioners that the need of thelandlord was not bona fide because ejectment proceedings were initiatedpiece-meal and not against all the tenants is also meaningless because it is a settled principle of law that the landlord is not obliged to do so.

9. In support of his contentions/ submissions, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 placed reliance on the following judgments :-

1. Atma S. Berar v. Mukhtiar Singh, 2003(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 42 : 2003(1) P.L.R. 371 (S.C.);

2. Kewal Krishan v. Amrik Singh, 2001(1) Rent Control