The requirement of the landlord to settle his son in business would not be covered by Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, as in such a case it cannot be said that the landlord requires the rented land for his own use.

S.P.GOYAL, J.

1. This revision under S.15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, called the Act) was referred to a Division Bench to resolve the conflict between the decision in Santokh Singh V/s. M/s. Sat Pal Jayanti Parshad, (1981) 1 Ren CR 465 and two earlier unreported judgements in Civil Revision No. 190 of 1959 (Kapur Singh V/s. Bhagwati Parshad) decided on Sept. 30, 1959 and Civil Revision No. 716 of 1963 (Kaura Ram V/s. Ram Chander) decided on Mar. 5, 1965.

2. The respondent-landlord filed a petition for the ejectment of his tenant, the petitioner, on various grounds, but the one which survives for consideration is as to whether the rented land was required by the former for his own use and occupation. The Rent Controller initially did not record a specific finding on this issue, but on report having been called by the appellate authority, reported that the landlord needs the rented land for the bona fide need of his son Vijay Kumar for starting coal business. This finding having been affirmed by the appellate authority and the ejectment ordered. the tenant has come up in this revision.

3. The principal argument raised, to assail the legality and propriety of the impugned order, was that the setting up of an independent business by the son would not be covered by S.13(3)(a)(ii) as in such a case it cannot be said that the landlord requires the rented land for his own use. In the alternative, it was contended that even if for the argument s sake it may be accepted that the need of a son, dependent on the landlord and living jointly with him, would be the requirement of the landlord himself, in the present case there being neither any pleading nor any evidence to substantiate that the son was dependent and living jointly with the landlord, the setting up of an independent business by the son cannot, by any stretch of reasoning, be taken as the requirement of the landlord. Reliance for this contention was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the two unreported judgements noticed above.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, relied on the following observations of D.S. Tewatia, J. in Santokh Singh s case (1981 (1) Ren CR 465) (supra) to contend that the requirement of the landlord to settle his son would be the requirement of the landlord himself :-

"In my opinion, the requirement of the landlords to settle their son is the requirement of landlords themselves and once the landlords had pleaded their own requirement for using the rented land for running a business, it was not necessary that they should have additionally pleaded that they desired their son to be settled in that business."

The facts found in that case were that Santokh Singh and his wife were the joint owners of the rented land. It was pleaded that they wanted to set up their own business and for that required the rented land. Santokh Singh, landlord, at that time was living in Behrain where he was running a similar business. He deposed that the fate of the Indians was not certain in Behrain and he wanted to shift to India. His wife deposed that she would start the business with the help of his son, who was also to be settled in life, till her husband joins her after winding up the business in Behrain. The learned Judge, on these facts, found that the landlords had the genuine requirement to occupy the rented land for their own use. Obviously, it was not a case where the landlord wanted the rented land to start an independent business of his son. The observations relied upon by the learned counsel were, therefore, in the nature of obiter dicta and the decision is Santokh Singh s case (supra) cannot be relied upon as a precedent for the proposition canvassed by the learned counsel for the landlord.

5 The learned counsel for the respondent next contended that the words "his own use" would include the use by the members of the family of the landlord as well. The requirement of the landlord to