The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory requirements of Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, and the need for the landlord to plead and prove the facts in compliance with these requirements.

JUDGMENT

Rekha Mittal, J. - The present petition directs challenge against concurrent findings of fact whereby petitioner-tenant has been ordered to be evicted from the shop in dispute bearing No. B-ii/1265, situated at Banwari Market, Patiala Road, Rajpura, detailed in head note of the eviction application on the twin grounds of bona fide personal necessity and cease to occupy.

2. Lajwanti, claiming herself to be the landlady of the demised premises sought eviction on the grounds inter alia non-payment of rent w.e.f. 1.5.1999; bona fide personal necessity for her son Raju; additions and alterations made by the tenant that is likely to impair value and utility of the premises and cease to occupy.

3. The Rent Controller, Rajpura vide order dated 10.12.2012 allowed the eviction application on the aforesaid twin grounds. The appeal preferred by the petitioner did not find favour with the Appellate Authority, Patiala whereby eviction on the aforesaid grounds was affirmed.

4. The facts relevant for disposal of the present petition are that as per case of the respondent, she is owner of the disputed shop which is on rent with the petitioner @ Rs. 186.25/- per month. The shop in dispute is required by her for personal bona fide necessity to adjust her son Raju for running business of car repair after reconstructing the same. The shop is lying closed for a period of six months prior to filing of eviction application and is still lying closed.

5. The petitioner/respondent filed reply and, in turn, raised the plea that he purchased half share of shop in dispute from Sh. Ashok Kumar son of Ramji Dass on his behalf and on behalf of his mother Smt. Ram Murti daughter of Sh. Rakha Ram vide registered sale deed dated 16.8.1995. He also purchased portion of shop from Ashok Kumar vide registered sale deed dated 31.5.2007. He took shop No. B-1/1265 on rent from Sh. Rakha Ram @ Rs. 185.25/- per month. After death of Rakha Ram, a decree was passed in favour of Ashok Kumar son of Ramji Dass to the extent of /rd share in land comprising khasra No. 495, suffered by Smt. Kasturi Devi widow of Rakha Ram. Shop in dispute is also part of khasra No. 495, situated at village Banwari, Tehsil Rajpura. The respondent relinquished her share in khasra No. 495 and suit filed by her against Ashok Kumar and Ram Murti was dismissed. The respondent is no longer landlady of the petitioner. It is further averred that in order to save eviction, he tendered arrears of rent on the first date of hearing. He has controverted the allegations on the basis whereof eviction has been sought. It is further averred that a shop adjoining to the shop in question which was in possession of Narain Dass has already been vacated on the ground of personal necessity of the respondent for her son Raju. All other material averments of the eviction application have been denied with prayer for dismissal of the same.

6. The Controversy between the parties led to framing of following issues and additional issues:-

"1.Whether the respondent is liable to be evicted from the shop in dispute on the grounds of arrears of rent or for personal necessity?OPA

1-A Whether the respondent has purchased the shop in question and is to its effect?OPR

1.B Whether the rent controller has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present petition?OPR

2.Relief."

7. To prove her case, the respondent appeared in the witness box and examined Balwinder Pal Singh PW2 and Mohinder Singh PW3. On the other hand, Sukhdev Singh petitioner appeared in the witness box and examined Mangat Singh RW2. The respondent landlady further examined Tejinder Kumar AW6, Yagya Dutt, Photographer AW7 and Gurpreet Singh PW8.

8. The Rent Controller decided issues No. 1, 1.A and 1.B in favour of the respondent with the findings that there exists relationship of landlady and tenant between the parties. The shop in question is required bona fide for personal necessity of son of the respondent. The petitioner has ceased to occupy the premises in q