The landlord's requirement for 'his own occupation' includes the normal 'emanations' of the landlord, and it is not mandatory to plead all the requirements of Section 13(3)(a)(i) in the eviction petition.

JUDGMENT

ORDER

Anil Kshetarpal, J. (Oral) - The tenant-petitioner is in the revision petition against the orders passed by the learned Rent Controller, affirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority.

2. The respondent-landlord filed a petition claiming bona fide necessity of the premises for her unmarried sister who was 38 years old at the time of filing of the rent petition. It was pleaded that she wishes to open a boutique of garments in the aforesaid tenanted premises. The landlord while filing the petition had pleaded as under:-

"11. That the applicant has never got vacated any shop within the Municipal area of Municipal Council Hoshiarpur for personal use and occupation of his sister Savita Tandan nor the applicant and his sister has never got vacated any shop within the municipal area of Hoshiarpur. The applicant does not own the possess any other commercial building in the urban area of Hoshiarpur city."

3. The tenant contested the petition and pleaded that there is another shop in possession of the landlord near his house. It was further pleaded that previously sister was working as a Teacher and, therefore, she is not unemployed.

4. Both the Courts after examining the evidence have found that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner while filing the revision petition has in the index disclosed following information, to assert that some similar cases are pending:-

"(a) " Ram Parkash Puri v. Dayal Chand and other" bearing Civil Revision No.1013 of 2014.

(b) " Ratinder Kumar v. Smt. Balbir Kaur" bearing Civil Revision No.6994 of 2015.

(c) " Rajinder Kumar Thapar v. Smt. Balbir Kaur" bearing Civil Revision No.7002 of 2015.

(d) " Ashwani Kumar v. Kuldip Singh" bearing Civil Revision No.5219 of 2017. "

6. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the order dated 11.12.2014 passed in CR No.6187 of 2014 by the Coordinate Bench wherein while admitting a revision petition, the following questions were framed:-

"1. Whether it was incumbent upon the landlord to make an averment about the bonafide necessity of the dependent in terms of Section 13(3)(a)(i)?

2. The non-averment of the requirement in the eviction petition would be fatal if sufficient cogent evidence has been led by the landlord in regard to the personal necessity of the dependent?

3. Whether the landlord has to prove the dependency of the dependent on her for the purpose of seeking eviction?

4. Whether the tenant is required to raise an objection with regard to the non-averment of the provisions of Section 13(3) (a)(i) in regard to the dependents?

5. Whether the order passed by this Court in CR No. 7609 of 2011 would suggest that the Appellate Court could reverse the finding on personal necessity even after dismissing the application for additional evidence filed by the landlord?"

7. At the time of the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the landlord has concealed the material facts from the Court. He has submitted that in cross-examination, sister for whom the eviction has been sought, has admitted that she is working as a part time Teacher on salary of Rs. 500/- per month, therefore, assertion that the sister is unemployed is factually incorrect. He further submitted that the landlord has concealed the fact that he is not in possession of any other building as there are three shops, two are at Vakilan Bazar and one adjoining the residence. He further submitted that the ingredients of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act of 1949") have not been pleaded with regard to the sister for whose necessity eviction petition has been filed.

8. It may be noticed that the words used in the Act are that the landlord is entitled to evict tenant 'for his own occupation'. Hon'ble the Supreme Court while giving meaningful expression to the words 'his own occupation' has held that word 'own occupation' woul