The landlord's genuine need for the premises and his right to decide the suitability of the premises for his business are crucial in eviction cases under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.

JUDGMENT

Alka Sarin, J. - The present revision petition has been preferred by the tenantpetitioner against the orders dated 04.12.2019 and 21.07.2022 passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority respectively, whereby his ejectment has been ordered from the premises in dispute.

2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the landlord- respondent filed an ejectment petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for eviction of the tenant-petitioner averring that he was owner and landlord of SCO No.152 Sector 24-D, Chandigarh and that the tenant-petitioner had been inducted as a tenant in the rear portion of the ground floor measuring 40% of the area and had an entry from the backside. It was further averred that the landlord-respondent purchased the SCO in the year 1998 and ever since the tenant-petitioner was paying rent @ Rs.750/- per month. The eviction of the tenant-petitioner was sought on the ground of personal necessity as the landlord-respondent wanted to expand his business which was being run from the front portion of the SCO. The ejectment petition was contested by the tenant-petitioner by contending that no cause of action had arisen in favour of the landlord-respondent as the premises in dispute was taken on rent by the tenant-petitioner from one Jagtar Singh in the year 1988 @ Rs.100/- per month and thereafter the rent was increased from time to time. It was also stated that the landlord-respondent was also a tenant under the said Jagtar Singh and was in occupation of the front portion of the SCO in question and w.e.f. 1998 the tenant-petitioner started making payment of rent to the landlord-respondent and at that time the landlord-respondent told the tenant-petitioner to pay the electricity consumption charges of the entire ground floor as he was running short of finances after purchasing the SCO and that the tenant-petitioner in order to maintain harmonious relations with the landlord-respondent started making payment of electricity consumption charges of the entire ground floor. It was further averred that the tenant- petitioner asked the landlord-respondent to adjust his share of the electricity consumption charges paid by him, however, the landlord-respondent requested for some more time to make the adjustment. It was further averred that the ejectment petition had been filed by the landlord-respondent only to avoid the refund of his share of the electricity consumption charges. It was also stated that the landlord-respondent had filed an ejectment petition qua the second floor of the SCO in question on the ground of personal necessity of his son which ejectment petition was allowed on 31.08.2015 and that the second floor had now been rented out again to some other persons. It was also the stand taken by the tenant-petitioner that the ejectment petition had been filed only in order to get the rent increased. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Rent Controller :

1. Whether the respondent is liable to be evicted from the demised premises on the ground of personal necessity ? OPP

2. Whether the petition is not maintainable ?

OPD 3. Relief.

3. The Rent Controller vide the impugned order dated 04.12.2019 directed the tenant-petitioner to hand over vacant peaceful possession of the premises in dispute to the landlord-respondent within 60 days from the date of passing of the order. Aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was preferred by the tenant-petitioner which appeal also came to be dismissed vide order dated 21.07.2022 passed by the Appellate Authority. Hence, the present revision petition.

4. The star argument of learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner is that the landlord-respondent was misusing the provisions of the Act inasmuch as he had got the second floor of the SCO in question vacated and has now given the same on rent again. In support of his argument, learned couns