RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. (ORAL)

This is tenant’s revision petition challenging order dated 15.01.2005 of the Rent Controller, Malerkotla, whereby he has been ordered to vacate the premises in question and further the judgment dated 4.10.2011 of the Appellate Authority, dismissing the appeal against the aforesaid order of eviction.

Though the respondent-landlord had sought ejectment of the petitioner on various grounds, yet it will be relevant to notice that eviction of the petitioner has been ordered only on the ground of personal necessity of the respondent-landlord. The respondent-landlord had set up his plea of bona fide necessity as under :

“11) That the petitioner was serving as teacher in Punjab Education Department and has been recently retired from service on 31/12/99 and the petitioner is unemployed and wants to start business of Ready made garments in the shop in dispute. So the petitioner requires shop for his own occupation.

12) That the petitioner has not vacated any such shop nor is in possession of any such shop since the enforcement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949 within the Urban Area of Malerkotla nor any where else.”

The petitioner contested the ejectment petition raising various preliminary objections. However, the relationship of landlord and tenant was admitted. The averments made in the reply filed on behalf of the petitioner-tenant read thus :

“11. That Para No.11 of the application is wrong and is strongly denied. The petitioner does not require the shop in dispute for his own occupation. The petitioner is already running an S.T.D. in the shop owned and possessed by the petitioner. Besides the petitioner has also rented out a shop adjoining his residential house to a tenant and the said shop was got vacated from the previous tenant.

12. That Para No.12 of the application is wrong and is strongly denied. A detailed reply has already been given above in this reply.”

At this stage, para Nos. 11 and 12 of the amended rejoinder submitted on behalf of the landlord-respondent may also be noticed, which reads thus:

11. That para no.11 of the application is correct and reiterated. Para No.11 of the reply is wrong and denied. It is wrong and denied that the petitioner does not require the shop in dispute for his own occupation and it is as well wrong that the petitioner is already running STD in the shop owned and possessed by him rather it is submitted that no part of the residential house fully detailed in the site plan marked as mark ‘Z’ which is already placed on the file, is on rent or that any portion of the same is being used for any commercial activity, rather it is submitted that the premises shown in the site plan mark X which was previously part and parcel of the residential house of the petitioner and which very small room was on rent with Mohd. Shabir is now being used for the residential need of his younger married son namely Kamal and his wife namely Reema as their bed room since they were married on 28/4/2009 i.e. after the site plan marked as mark ‘Z’ was prepared and submitted in rent appeal filed by Sunil Kumar against Jagjiwan Kumar. And similarly the adjoining room on the western Northern corner of the site plan mark ‘Z’ is being used by the elder married son of the petitioner and also as Drawing Room and it is further submitted that earlier the wife of the petitioner was doing her PCO business in this room to augment the income of the family and after this business remained no more popular and profitable the same was closed. And it is further submitted here that accommodation in the residential house became totally insufficient on account of his grown up children and also on account of the subsequent events referred supra and infra which occurred during the pendency of the rent appeal. It is further submitted here that even the residential accommodation now available with the petitioner for his residence alongwith his wife is not sufficient for his family which besides the