A landlord cannot get commercial premises vacated on the ground that the same were required by him for his personal use and occupation.

Ashok Bhan, J.

1. Aggrieved against the orders passed by the Rent Controller and the lower Appellate Court dismissing his ejectment petition, landlord-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) has filed this revision petition.

2. Petitioner filed an application Under Section 13 of the East Punjab urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for ejectment of the tenant-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) from the rented land shown red in the site plan and fully described in the head note of the application, situated in the area of Ropar District. It was alleged that the petitioner had become the owner of the rented premises shown red in the site plan by way of purchase from Dalip Dass, who was the original owner of the land. Respondent is in possession of the rented land as a tenant at the rate of Rs. 11/- per month and he had agreed to remove the malba of the construction which he had raised on the rented land. It is further ayerred that the respondent is liable to be ejected from the rented land in dispute on the grounds that the land in dispute is required bonafide for personal use and occupation by the petitioner; that the petitioner did not own or possess any other such rented land within the municipal limits of Rupnagar and that he has not vacated such land after the commencement, of the Act. Another ground taken for eviction is that the respondent did not pay or tender rent since 11.1.1978. Petitioner also took the ground that the respondent had sublet a part of the rented land in dispute without the consent of the petitioner, though said sub-letting is not existing at present.

3. Ejectment application was contested by the respondent. It was admitted that the respondent was a tenant of, the land in dispute; that the construction was raised by the respondent. Rate of rent was not Rs. 11/- per month as alleged by the petitioner but the same was Rs. 80/- per year. Vacant site was taken by the respondent on rent in the year 1939; that the respondent had installed machinery on the site and the premises in dispute are being put to a commercial use. Respondent tendered Rs. 65/-as rent, Rs. 35/- as costs and Rs. 5/- as interest and in all he tendered Rs. 106/- before the Rent Controller. It was further averred by the respondent that the petitioner was a coparcenar in the Hindu Joint Family and he had got share in the coparcenary property formed by him with his father and brothers by birth. There are two big houses belonging to the said Joint Hindu Family coparcenary property alongwith a three storied shop-cum-flat, situated within the municipal limits of Ropar. It was alleged that the Joint Hindu Family owned certain other properties as well. It was denied that the premises in dispute were required by the petitioner for his bonafide personal use and occupation.

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

"1. What is the rate of rent regarding the premises in dispute ? OPP parties.

2. Whether the respondent is liable to be evicted from the land in dispute on the grounds mentioned in the application ? OPA.

3. Relief."

5. No issue regarding non payment of rent was framed because the respondent had tendered Rs. 106/- towards the arrears of rent, costs and interest and the said ground had become redundant.

6. Rent Controller dismissed the rent petition and thereafter an appeal was carried by the petitioner, which was also dismissed.

7. So far as issue No. 1 is concerned, the same was not pressed before the lower appellate court, and no arguments have been addressed on this issue before me either. The findings recorded by the courts below on issue No. 1 are, therefore, affirmed. Under issue No. 2, petitioner had sought the ejectment of the respondent on three grounds i.e. non payment of rent, subletting and personal bonafide requirement for occupation of the land. The ground of non payment of rent did not survive as the tenant had tendered the rent