The crucial date for assessing the bonafide requirement of the landlords is the date of filing the eviction application, and subsequent events may be considered within the scope of revisional jurisdiction. The court's interference with findings of fact is limited to ensuring that they are according to law and do not suffer from any error of law.

1. Instant revision is filed in terms of Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short to be referred as 'the Act'). Tirath Ram and Darshan Pal, petitioners No. 1 and 2 the real brothers and predecessors of the petitioners No. 3 to 7 filed a petition for ejectment of the respondent, who is a tenant in the shop in question with effect from 29.10.1983 on a monthly rent of ` 290/-. The eviction was sought on the grounds inter alia:-

(i) that the respondent was in arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.05.1996; and

(ii) that the shop in question is required for the bonafide use and occupation of the sons of the original petitioners.

Tirath Ram is survived by one son Gulshan Rai petitioner No. 4 and Darshan Pal survived by two sons, namely; Sanjeev Kumar and Rajesh Kumar, petitioners No. 6 and 7. The original petitioners before the Rent Controller set up a plea that they wanted to settle their sons in the shop in question so that they may earn their livelihood. The other ingredients as specified in sub-clauses (b) and (c) of Section 13(3) of the Act were also pleaded. Since the rent was tendered on the first date of hearing, the only ground that subsists as per the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is the bonafide requirement of the petitioners. The respondent contested the petition. Rejoinder was also filed and learned Rent Controller framed the following issues:-

(i) Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected on the grounds as mentioned in para No. 4 of the application? OPA

(ii) Whether petitioners have not come to Court with clean hands? OPR

(iii) Relief.

2. Parties produced their respective evidence. The Rent Controller initially dismissed the application for eviction but in appeal order of the Rent Controller was set aside and order of eviction was passed. That order was challenged in CR No. 2177 of 1999, before this Court and it was pointed out that Durga Dass grandfather of petitioners No. 3, 6 and 7 and Darshan Lal father of petitioners No. 6 and 7 had died during pendency of the revision. This Court observed that the subsequent events have necessarily required to be taken note of and also the fact now some more property/shops have become available. In view of the above, the learned counsel stated that he would like to amend the eviction application and bring subsequent events to the notice of the Court. For this reason, the revision petition was allowed and the order of the appellate authority was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Rent Controller for fresh decision, permitting the petitioners to submit application for amendment. It is admitted that even Tirath Ram, the other original petitioner has since died.

3. In the amended petition, the ground of bonafide need and occupation of the petitioners is that the petitioners require the premises to earn their livelihood by occupying the same and settling themselves in one shop each because they have since inherited two shops from their fathers and one shop from their grandfather Sh. Durga Dass. The respondent in the written statement to the amended petition pleaded that the petitioners are occupying two shops in the same locality besides the disputed shop. It was also stated in the amended written statement dated 05.01.2011 that Rajesh son of Darshan Pal petitioner No. 5 has secured permanent Government employment in the Education Department.

4. The learned Rent Controller framed the following issues on the amended pleadings:-

(i) Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected on the ground as averred in the amended plaint? OPA

(ii) Whether the present application is not maintainable? OPR

(iii) Whether the ejectment application filed by the applicant is not bonafide rather it has been based upon malafide intention with ulterior motive to get the shop in question vacated from the tenant on the ground of personal necessity? OPR

(iv) Relief.

5. The parties produced their respective evidence. Learned Rent Controller dismissed the