Alok Singh, J.

1. Tenant - petitioner has filed present petition under Section 15 (5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the 1949 Act), challenging the order dated 20.5.2009 passed by the Rent Controller as well as the order dated 29.10.2009 passed by the Appellate Authority, whereby the eviction petition filed by the landlord respondent herein was allowed and eviction of the petitioner tenant was in decreed on the ground of personal bonafide requirement of the landlord respondent.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that the landlord respondent has filed petition under Section 13 of the Act for the ejectment of the tenant from the shop situated in Ghatti Bazar, at Patti, District District Amritsar now at Tarn Taran, initially on three grounds (i) non-payment of arrears of rent; (ii) tenant has not maintained the shop in question as well as its furniture and has decreased the utility of the shop; and (iii) the landlord requires the shop in question for his personal bonafide necessity.

3. The Rent Controller did not agree with the plaintiff on two grounds i.e. the tenant has decreased the utility of the shop and he is arrears of rent. However, the Rent Controller allowed the eviction petition on the ground that the landlord has personal bonafide necessity of the tenanted shop to start business therein. The Appellate Authority also agreed with the finding recorded by the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner tenant argued that eviction petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has failed to plead in the ejectment petition contents of sub-section (b) and (c) of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the 1949 Act to the effect that the landlord is not occupying any other building in the urban area concerned and he has not got vacated any other shop after the commencement of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgement of the Full Bench of this Court in the matter of Banke Ram v. Smt. Sarasti Devi, 1 (977)79 PLR 112 (FB). Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the landlord has issued notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as the 1982 Act) prior to the filing of the ejectment petition but in the notice no mention was made of his bonafide personal necessity. The further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the landlord has not disclosed in the eviction petition the nature of the business he intends to start in the tenanted shop.

5. Learned counsel for the landlord respondent stated that both the parties have led evidence on the question as to whether the landlord was occupying any other building in urban area and on the question that landlord has got vacated any such building after commencement of the 1949 Act. Learned counsel for the landlord- respondent further stated that in view of the fact that both the parties have led evidence knowing well the requirement of sub-section (b) and (c) of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the 1949 Act, hence not mentioning of the same in the petition is not fatal. He further stated that there was no need for the landlord to take the plea of bonafide need in the notice under Section 106 of the 1882 Act. It is further stated that in the evidence led by the landlord, it has been mentioned by the landlord that earlier he was selling cloth on Daggy and now at this stage he was not able to sell the cloth by Daggy and wanted to sit on the shop and carry out his business. Learned counsel for the respondent landlord further stated that there is concurrent finding of fact on the question of personal bonafide necessity of the landlord and hence, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below should not be disturbed.

6. In the matter of Banke Ram (supra), the Full Bench of this Court, while over-ruling the judgement of a Division Bench of this Cou