Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.;—

This is tenant’s revision petition challenging the judgment dated 21.10.2011 passed by the Appellate Authority, whereby while accepting the appeal against the order dated 19.12.2008 of the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, eviction of the petitioner has been ordered from the demised premises on the ground of personal necessity of the respondent-landlord.

Respondent-landlord Piara Lal (since deceased) sought ejectment of the petitioner on various grounds including that of personal necessity of the landlord. The Rent Controller, vide order dated 19.12.2008, dismissed the ejectment petition holding that the respondent has failed to prove his case. However, the respondentlandlord filed an appeal against the aforesaid order and the same was accepted vide order dated 21.10.2011 of the Appellate Authority on the ground that demised premises is required by the landlord for his bonafide personal necessity and the petitioner was directed to hand over vacant possession of the shop in dispute to the Legal Representatives of appellant-Piara Lal.

The petitioner-tenant has challenged the aforesaid judgment dated 21.10.2011 on the ground that in the ejectment petition, the respondent-landlord has nowhere pleaded that the demised shop is needed for settling his two sons who are earning their livelihood by ironing the clothes on a cart, as stated by him in the examination inchief. It is further case of the petitioner that in the cross-examination of Dharam Pal son of Piara Lal, he has admitted that another shop was lying vacant prior to the filing of eviction petition; however, the aforesaid fact has not been mentioned in the eviction petition and thus, the landlord has concealed material facts from the knowledge of the Court, which has disentitled him to the relief claimed. Moreover, the landlord has failed to plead necessary ingredients for eviction of the ground of personal necessity. It is further case of the petitioner that in view of the aforesaid facts, the need of the landlord cannot be held to be genuine, real and honest; and thus, the instant revision petition be accepted and the impugned judgment of the Appellate Authority be set aside while dismissing the eviction petition of the respondent-landlord.

However, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that bonafide need of the respondent-landlord stands proved from the evidence on record. Moreover, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as he has failed to make payment of rent for the last five years.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment of the Appellate Authority.

At this stage, order dated 09.01.2012 passed by this Court, be noticed, which reads thus:

“Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that PW3 Dharam Pal son of the landlord has admitted in his cross-examination that his father had constructed two shops, out of which, the shop in question is in possession of the petitioner, whereas the other shop is lying vacant for the last 5 years. She submits that the eviction petition was filed on 21.03.2004 and Dharam Pal was cross-examined on 15.08.2006, meaning thereby that the other shop was already available when the eviction petition was filed, but it was not disclosed by the landlord in his eviction petition that he has some other vacant premises in the same urban area.

Notice of motion for 01.02.2012.

In the meantime, dispossession of the petitioner shall remain stayed.”

It is also useful to refer to the relevant part of the judgment of the Appellate Authority, which reads as under:

“11. On going through the evidence, it is however found that the landlord has produced cogent and convincing evidence to prove that he was in bonafide need of the demised shop. As per him, he wants to settle two of his sons in the demised shop. They want to start a business of ironing and dry cleaning in the demised shop as well as in the adjoining shop which is lying vacant. At present, his sons are doing the ironing

Click Here to Read the rest of this document