The main legal point established in the judgment is that the requirement of non-residential premises by the son of the landlord is covered by the word 'his own occupation', and the person maintaining an eviction petition on the ground of bona fide necessity must plead all the mandatory ingredients of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act.

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.

The following questions of law are involved in this revision petition:-

1. Whether a landlord can seek eviction of a tenant from a non-residential premises on the ground of bona fide necessity of his son and whether son's requirement is also covered by the word used “his own occupation”?

2. Whether son of the landlord, for whose benefit the nonresidential premises is sought to be got vacated, if not the landlord or the owner himself, is also required to plead the ingredients of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act in the eviction petition?

3. Whether the landlord who though pleaded bona fide need of the non-residential premises for his son who has not pleaded that he does not possess another nonresidential premises in the urban area concerned or had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause after coming into force of the Act, but would it be sufficient if he had appeared and deposed on oath that he does not possess another non-residential building in the urban area concerned nor had vacated such a building without sufficient cause in the same urban area after coming into force of the Act?

4. Whether the tenant can raise the question of noncompliance of mandatory provisions of Section 13(3)(a) (i) of the Act even if he did not question it in his reply nor ask for any issue in this regard for the purpose of trial?

The tenant is in revision against the order of eviction passed by the Courts below on the ground of personal necessity.

2. In short, the landlords filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short “the Act”] in order to seek eviction of the tenant from shop No.22, situated in Hall Bazar, Muktsar [hereinafter referred to as “demised premises”]. The eviction was sought, inter alia, on the ground of personal necessity and the averments made in that regard are as under: -

“That the petitioners require the shop in dispute for their personal use and occupation. The shop is very old and built in old style. The petitioners will demolish the shop, reconstruct it in a modern fashion, providing all modern facilities and thereafter Jaskaran Singh son of the petitioner No.3 will start business in it, he is a young boy and has no work, he is to be provided work and settled in business. He will start business in the shop in dispute. The petitioners do not own or possess any other nonresidential building nor have they vacated any such building after coming into force of Act-III of 1949.”

3. In the written statement, the aforesaid paragraph was replied as under:-

“That this para of the application is incorrect as stated. This is all concoction and a made up story to make a ground for ejectment of the respondent without any right. The petitioners have no link with the Muktsar City. The shop in dispute is in a good condition and has not become unfit and unsafe for human habitation as alleged. The present application has been filed only to harass the respondent with a malafide intention and the present application is speculative.”

4. Though we are not concerned with other grounds of eviction in the present case, yet on the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned Rent Controller:-

“1. Whether the respondent has not paid rent w.e.f. 19.11.1985 ? OPP.

2. Whether the shop in dispute has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation ? OPP.

3. Whether the petitioners required the shop in dispute for their personal use and occupation ? OPP.

4. Whether the petitioners are entitled for eviction order and to get possession of the shop ? OPP.

5. Whether the present application has been filed just to harass respondent ? OPD.

6. Relief.”

The landlords examined R.D. Sharma, approved Chartered Engineer as PW1, Brijinder Singh as PW2 and Jaskaran Singh as PW3, whereas the tenant examined Gurbaj Singh (attorney of respondent) as RW1, Jita Singh, Civil Engineer as RW2, Balwinder Singh, Registration Clerk, as RW3 and Ram Ji Dass, Deed Writer, as RW4.