The landlord's prima facie demonstration of necessity raises a presumption in his favor, shifting the onus to the tenant to show mala fide intent, and the lack of bonafides of the landlord's requirement cannot be questioned by the tenant on a hypothetical basis.

Raj Mohan Singh, J.

This revision petition has been preferred by tenant-petitioner against the judgment dated 19.10.2015 passed by the Appellate Authority confirming and upholding the judgment dated 01.03.2013 passed by the Rent Controller, Gurdaspur.

2. An ejectment petition was filed by the landlord-respondent No.1 against the petitioner-tenant and Jyoti Saini under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 in respect of shop marked by letters 'ABCD' having defined dimensions as shown in the ejectment petition.

3. The ejectment petition was filed with the averments that respondent No.1 (herein)/landlord was owner of the shop and mother of respondent No.1 Smt. Kaushalya Devi had given the shop to Chatru Ram father of the tenant-petitioner on rent @ Rs. 15/- per month vide rent note dated 21.07.1984. After the demise of Chatru Ram, petitioner and Jyoti Saini inherited the tenancy rights. Mother of respondent No.1 was owner of four shops including shop in question. She executed Will dated 30.04.1997 in favour of respondent No.1 in respect of two shops and other two shops were bequeathed in favour of her two sons namely Vijay Kumar and Raju.

4. Earlier respondent No.1 was doing Munari business along with his son Smarat Mahajan in a rented shop near Bata Chowk at Gurdaspur. He was ejected from the shop by the Rent Controller and he remained unsuccessful in appeal as well.

5. Respondent No.1 filed an ejectment petition in respect of other shop against the tenant in occupation of that shop. Ejectment was ordered against the tenant-Mohan Lal. Mohan Lal had purchased the said shop from respondent No.1 vide sale deed dated 31.07.2007. Respondent No.1 had also purchased the shop under his tenancy from its owner and started Munari business. Business was not flourishing as the shop was not situated in the main market. Son of respondent No.1 was doing business in said shop and he remained idle. In the ejectment petition, he sought ejectment of the petitioner- tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent w.e.f. 01.01.1996 onwards as well as on the ground of personal necessity.

6. The ejectment petition was contested by the tenant-petitioner. Relationship of landlord and tenant was admitted between the parties. Arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.01.1996 was also admitted with an explanation that the petitioners-tenants were offering the rent, but the same was not accepted by landlord-respondent No.1. Tenants showed their willingness to make good the arrears of rent with interest and costs as assessed by the Court. Personal necessity of landlord-respondent No.1 was denied on the ground that son of respondent No.1-landlord was not doing independent business and the same was being run by respondent No.1 as well, as a joint venture.

7. After completion of pleadings, both the parties went to trial on the following issues:-

"(1) Whether the petitioner/applicant is entitled to ejectment of the respondent on the ground of non-payment of rent? OPA

(2) Whether the property in dispute is bonafidely required by the applicant for his personal necessity? OPA

(3) Whether the application is not maintainable in the present form? OPR

(4) Relief."

8. Both the parties led their respective evidence to prove their case. Rent Controller allowed the ejectment petition vide order dated 01.03.2013 thereby ejecting the petitioner-tenant with a direction to hand over the vacant possession of the demised shop to respondent No.1-landlord within a period of 60 days from the date of order. Tenant-petitioner remained unsuccessful before the Appellate Authority who dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 19.10.2015.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner to some length.

10. Tenant-petitioner tendered the rent along with interest and costs as assessed by the Rent Controller which was accepted by respondent No.1-landlord. Therefore, issue of ejectment on the ground of non-payment of rent was not pressed before the Rent Controller. On the issue of bona fide