The landlord's active concealment of material facts regarding his ownership of other shops and property led to the dismissal of the eviction petitions.

JUDGMENT

Lisa Gill, J. - This order shall dispose of C.R Nos. 7916 and 7917 of 2015 and CR No. 8337 of 2015.

2. All these three petitions have been filed by the landlord, who was unsuccessful in three petitions filed by him, under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'Act') seeking eviction of the different tenants in all the three premises. All the petitions have been dismissed by the learned Rent Controller, Nakodar, vide separate impugned orders evenly dated 12.03.2013. Appeals filed by the petitioner were also dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority, Jalandhar. All three petitions are taken up for hearing together as similar grounds have been raised in all the cases.

FACTS in each of the three petitions.

3. Petitioner sought eviction of the respondent-Balwinder Singh from the premises as detailed in the petition i.e. a shop given on rent for a period of 24 months at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month on 01.04.2009 with a stipulation that in the event of the tenant intending to keep the shop for further period, the rent would be increased by 10%. Eviction of the respondent-tenant was sought on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent as well as personal bona fide necessity. It was pleaded that the petitioner-landlord required the shop in dispute and two other adjoining shops for his personal use for conducting business by his son-Sukhwinder Singh, who had completed his hardware course of computers. It was pleaded that the petitioner's son wanted to start his business of computer assembling, computer repairs, prints solution as well as other allied works. It was averred that the petitioner was not in occupation of any other shop in the urban area concerned and had not vacated any other shop without sufficient cause after the commencement of the Act. It was further alleged that material alterations and changes had been carried out in the shop by the tenant without the consent of the petitioner.

Relationship of landlord-tenant was admitted by the respondent-tenant. Rate of rent was disputed. Tenancy was stated to be oral. Personal bona fide necessity of the landlord was denied as the petitioner's son Sukhwinder Singh was claimed to be engaged in business in the shops which were already in possession of the landlord. It was denied that any material alteration or change had been carried out in the shop in dispute.

From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned Rent Controller, Nakodar:-

1. What is the rate of rent? OP parties.

2. Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 1100/- per month as alleged? OPA

3. Whether the demised shop is required by the applicant for use and occupation of his son? OPA

4. Whether the respondent is guilty of material alterations and changes in the shop in dispute without the consent of the petitioner? OPA

5. If issue nos. 2 to 4 or any of them is proved in the affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled to order of eviction against the respondent? OPA

6. Whether the application is not maintainable? OPR

7. Whether the applicant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present petition? OPR

8. Whether the petitioner is guilty of concealment of material facts? OPR

9. Relief.

CR No. 7917 of 2015.

Petitioner sought eviction of the respondent-Gurpreet Singh from the premises as detailed in the petition i.e. a shop given on rent for a period of 11 months at the rate of Rs. 900/- per month on 01.05.2007 with a stipulation that in the event of the tenant intending to keep the shop for further period, the rent would be increased by 10% after every three years. Eviction of the respondent-tenant was sought on the ground of nonpayment of arrears of rent as well as personal bona fide necessity. It was pleaded that the petitioner-landlord required the shop in dispute and two adjoining shops for his personal use for conducting business by his son-Sukhwinder Singh, who had completed his hardware course of co