The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of proving bona fide need for eviction under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, and the court's interpretation of the evidence presented in support of the petitioners' claim.

JUDGMENT

Harinder Singh Sidhu, J. - This order shall dispose of two Civil Revisions, referred to above as they arise out of a common order of the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, whereby, it dismissed two appeals filed by the tenants against the order of the Rent Controller. There were three tenants in the ejectment petition. They filed two separate appeals against the order of the Rent Controller which were disposed of by the impugned order.

2. The facts are being taken from Civil Revision No.2057 of 2017.

3. The tenants Ranjana Mahajan and Deepti Mahajan (widow and daughter of late Jeet Mahajan) have filed the present revision petition impugning the order dated 30.10.2014 of the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, whereby, the eviction petition filed by their landlords was allowed. Also challenged is the order dated 16.2.2017 of the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, whereby, their appeal was dismissed.

4. In this order the landlords would be referred to as the 'petitioners' and the tenants as the 'respondents', as per their status in the eviction petition.

5. The petitioners had filed the petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act') for ejectment of the respondents from the tenanted premises i.e. SCF No.20 (excluding its Barsati portion), Sector-11-D, Chandigarh. It was pleaded that one Hargian Singh Ahluwalia son of late Shri Daulat Ram was the owner of the said Shop-cum-Flat. He had let out the shop cum flat excluding the Barsati portion to Jeet Mahajan more than 35 years ago. Jeet Mahajan expired in 2008 leaving behind respondent No.1, his widow and respondents No.2 and 3, his daughters as his legal heirs. Hargian Singh Ahluwalia had three daughters and no son. His wife had expired long ago. His daughter Suchi Ahluwalia is married and settled in Pune. He died on 21.10.2008 leaving the two petitioners and their sister Suchi Ahluwalia as his only legal heirs and owners of the SCF in question. Both the petitioners are unmarried. Their father was initially a Transport Contractor. About three years before his death, he became bed-ridden due to some illness. During his life-time, he was living in a rented accommodation at Gurukul Kangri (Kankhal). He had no other residential or commercial property except his share in a dilapidated ancestral house at Safidon, District Jind. Petitioner No.1 is M.Com and petitioner No.2 is an M.B.A. After the death of their father the petitioners had no interest to live in Gurukul Haridwar. Their nearest relation is their father's elder brother, who is a practicing Advocate at Chandigarh. It was pleaded that the petitioners had decided to shift to Chandigarh to be close to their uncle. They had decided to set up a shop for the sale of books and periodicals and also set up a Consultancy Service. The rented premises being located in a posh sector was an ideal place for the intended purpose. It was also pleaded that the respondents were in arrears of rent.

6. The plea of the tenants-respondents was that the eviction petition was not maintainable as only partial ejectment had been sought by the petitioners. Ejectment of the respondents had not been sought from the Barsati on the top floor of the SCF, though it was a part of the tenanted premises and was in the possession of the respondents as tenants. The bona fide need of the petitioners was also questioned. It was stated that the petitioners only intended to increase the rent. It was pleaded that petitioners No.1 and 2 were of marriageable age, being aged about 27 and 28 years, respectively. They would soon get married and shift to their matrimonial homes. It was pleaded that petitioner No.1 was running a well-established private coaching centre at Haridwar. Petitioner No.2 was employed in the Managerial cadre in the ICICI Bank at Haridwar. Petitioners were also running a flourishing guest house in their building at Haridwar. Their maternal uncles along with their families were residing at Haridw