The landlord is the master of his need, and the tenant cannot dictate how the need should be satisfied. The tenant cannot curtail the genuine and bona fide need of the landlord.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

Rekha Mittal, J. - Challenge in the present petition has been directed against concurrent findings of fact whereby application filed under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short the Act) for ejectment of the petitioner from shops bearing No. 2 and 3 forming part of property No. 8, Adarsh Nagar, Jalandhar detailed in head-note of the eviction application was allowed by the Rent Controller, Jalandhar vide order dated 29.08.2017 on the premise that the respondents require the shops for their bona fide use and occupation. The appeal preferred by the petitioner did not find favour with the Appellate Authority, Jalandhar vide order dated 25.01.2019.

2. The respondents/petitioners sought the eviction on the ground of arrears of rent, change of user, bona fide personal necessity, building being in dilapidated condition and alterations without consent/permission of the landlord. However, the eviction was ordered only on the ground of bona fide personal necessity.

3. A relevant extract from sub-para (c) of para 2 of the eviction application, relevant in the present context, reads as follows:-

"(c) The petitioner has got the personal necessity for bona fide reasons and need the same for his personal needs and occupation for himself and for his sons. His one son is an Advocate and the other is in Sports business and they have insufficient space for their daily work respectively causing them great inconvenience. The second son has to open sports goods show room in the premises in question as there is sports market, near the premises required."

4. There is no dispute that property in question is owned by Shakuntala Sachdeva - applicant No. 2 therein and Sh. T.R. Sachdeva - applicant No. 1 has claimed himself to be landlord on the allegations that tenancy was created by him. There is no dispute between the parties with regard to relationship of landlord and tenant and so also entitlement of Sh. T.R. Sachdeva to maintain the eviction proceedings.

5. Sh. T.R. Sachdeva appeared in the witness box and tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex. PW1/A wherein he detailed need of the premises in question for the purpose of making a showroom and residential portion to be constructed on the back of showroom.

6. Counsel for the petitioner would argue that sons of the petitioners namely Varinder and Raman are not dependent upon the respondents and they are residing with their families in then-own property as has been admitted by respondent No. 1. He has further submitted that the total property is measuring 30 marlas and area measuring 20 marlas is lying vacant. It is argued that despite the respondents being in occupation of vacant area measuring 20 marlas, they have not raised construction of residential portion. The front of the property is about 100 feet out of which only 18 feet is in possession of the petitioner, therefore, the remaining frontage is with the respondents or their son Raman Sachdeva who is doing business in the third shop which has 9 feet front. Further, respondent No. 1 has admitted that area of shop in possession of his son can be extended towards backside. It is argued with vehemence that in view of the facts elicited in cross examination of respondent No. 1, findings recorded by the Courts qua bona fide necessity suffer from illegality rather perversity.

7. I have heard counsel for the petitioner, perused the impugned orders, copy of the site plan and testimonies of respondent-T.R. Sachdeva and his son Varinder Sachdeva, copies whereof were supplied during the course of hearing.

8. Before adverting to the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner, it is pertinent to recapitulate that landlord is the master of his need and the tenant cannot dictate as to how he can satisfy his need by using other portions of the property. Equally settled is that neither the Court nor the tenant can curtail the genuine and bona fide need of the landlord. When a petition for eviction on the gro