The mere omission to make a pleading regarding possession of another premises is not sufficient to dismiss an Eviction Application if the requirement is fulfilled in the evidence.

JUDGMENT

Sudip Ahluwalia, J. - This Revisional Application is directed against the Judgment dated 19.12.2014 passed by the Ld. Appellate Authority, Ferozepur in Rent Appeal No.156 of 2013 affirming the Order of the Rent Controller, vide which the Eviction Petition filed by the Respondent/Landlady under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 had been allowed.

2. In their concurrent findings, both the Ld. Courts below have held the Respondent/Landlady to be entitled to have the Petitioner/Tenant evicted from the demised Shop on the ground of her personal necessity inasmuch as she wants her own son to start his business in the same. It was her case originally that due to his illhealth, her husband was unable to do any gainful work, and so her son was required to start his own business in the demised Shop as he was otherwise working in a Karyana Shop elsewhere. It has further transpired that the said husband of the Respondent/Landlady namely Dilbagh Singh died during pendency of the original Eviction Application. The Petitioner/Tenant had denied the Respondent's Claim in this regard that personal bonafide requirement of the Landlady was false, since her son was running his own Karyana Shop and was not working anywhere as an employee, and that in any event, the Eviction Application was liable to be dismissed in view of the fact that the Landlady had omitted to mention in the same that either she was not in occupation of any other such premises/Shop in Municipal Area, had got the same vacated before filing of the Application.

3. Ld. Counsel for Petitioner alongwith his Written Synopsis has relied upon the following decisions in suppot of the contention that the Eviction Petition of the Respondent/Landlady ought to be dismissed for wilful suppression of the fact that she was also in occupation of another Shop when filing the Eviction Petition -

i) Randhir Singh Rohilla Vs. Rajbir,2015 33 RCR(Civil) 112

ii) Vinod Kumar Vs. Bhushan Kumar Jain & Ors.,2019 1 RCR(Rent) 325

iii) Shankar Lal Vs. Madan Lal & others, (2011) 1 RCR(Rent) 139

iv) Sandeep Kumar Vs. Nihal Chand, (2014) 1 RCR(Rent) 30

v) Banke Ram Vs. Shrimati Sarasvati Devi, (1977) 1 RCR(Rent) 595

4. It is however, well settled that the mere omission to make a pleading in this regard is in itself no ground to dismiss the Eviction Application altogether, if otherwise, the requirement is fulfilled in the evidence to be led from the Landlord's side. In the present case, it was asserted on behalf of Petitioner that the Landlady holds another Shop adjacent to the demised Shop, and to support this contention, he has placed on record a Site Plan of the demised Shop (Annexure P-3) to show that another Shop is situated on the North-Western side of his own demised Shop in the concerned Building. In addition, the Petitioner/Tenant has also placed on record a copy of the Sale Deed of House No.1 (P) Street No.11, Ferozepur Cantt. (Annexure P-5) to show that the said House purchased by the Landlady from Erstwhile Owner Satya Devi on 6.2.1991 has two Shops. But it may be noted that case of the Landlady from the very beginning that she had purchased the demised Shop in the year 1991. In her crossexamination as PW-1, the Respondent admitted that she had Shop adjoining to the demised Shop. But there is nothing to suggest that the said adjacent Shop happens to be in her own occupation. On the contrary, it was suggested to her that the rent of the said Shop was Rs.200/- per month, thereby implying that it was actually let out to some body else and was not in her own occupation. Similarly, in the face of denial by the Landlady's son namely Ravinder Singh @ Sonu (AW-1) that he is running his own Karyana Shop situated at Bazar No.1, the onus fell on the Petitioner/Tenant to show that the Karyana Shop in which, the said witness was working, actually belonged to himself only, and that he was not working there as employee of some body. But no evidence such as by way of any Municipal