The crucial date for deciding the bona fide requirement of the landlord is the date of filing of the petition.

JUDGMENT

Tribhuvan Dahiya J. (Oral) - This is landlord's revision petition against the orders dated 12.8.2005 passed by the Rent Controller dismissing the eviction petition and against the order dated 20.11.2006 passed by the Appellate Authority, affirming the same.

2. Facts of the case in brief are, the petitioner/landlord (hereinafter referred to as 'the landlord') filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act'), for eviction of the respondents/tenants (hereinafter referred to as 'the tenants') from the shop, portion of Plot no. ED-290, Old Railway Road, Jalandhar City (hereinafter referred to as 'the demised premises'). The eviction was sought on two grounds; on account of non-payment of arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.8.1994 and house tax w.e.f. 1.4.1991, and that the demised premises was required by the landlord for his grandson, Vivek Prasher, who was studying in final year of B.A.M.S. at the time of institution of the petition on 17.4.1997. It was averred that on completion of degree in May 1997, he would start his medical practice in the demised premises. It was bona fide and earnest desire of the landlord to settle his grandson at Jalandhar. It was also pleaded that the landlord had no other suitable accommodation for running the clinic for his grandson. He was living in the locality since long and had a large number of acquaintances in the vicinity of the demised premises which would help his grandson in establishing himself as a medical practitioner.

3. The eviction petition was contested by the tenants, inter alia, on the ground that no rent note was executed by them on 1.4.1991, as alleged. The arrears of rent and house tax were statedly tendered to avoid ejectment, but they had a right to recover the excess amount paid to the landlord. Regarding personal necessity of the landlord, it was stated that the demised premises was not required for his grandson. The landlord was in occupation of six other shops, of which three were owned by him and other three had been rented out. One of the shops owned by the landlord was lying vacant, which could have been occupied by his grandson.

4. The landlord filed replication admitting that he was in possession of three shops as a tenant, wherein a dhaba business was being run. Ownership of the other three shops was denied by him. It was, further, pleaded that M/s Ashoka Tent House was being run in two shops since 1960, and some material like bamboos etc. was lying in the open as fire had broken out in the premises earlier. It was also pleaded that one shop was in possession of M/s Dayal Paint and Hardware, running its business there since 1974, which was adjacent to the demised premises.

5. On pleadings of the parties, following issues were settled by the Rent Controller:

1. What is the rate of rent? OPA

2. Whether the respondents are in arrears of house tax and rent? OPA

3. Whether the premises are required for the personal use of the landlord? OPA

4. Relief.

6. On leading evidence, none of grounds of eviction could be established by the landlord, and the ejectment petition was dismissed. The findings were affirmed by the Appellate Authority on both the counts. In the instant revision petition, however, the landlord has confined his arguments only to challenge the adverse findings of the Authorities on the bona fide need of the landlord to occupy the demised premises.

7. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard.

8.1 A perusal of the judgments passed by the authorities below show that bona fide need of the landlord to occupy the demised premises has been held to be not proved on account of the following:

(i) The business of M/s Dayal Paint and Hardware was closed after the fire broke out in the year 1996-97, i.e., prior to filing of the present petition, and this fact stood proved by way of evidence on record, and also stood admitted in the replication filed by the landlord that fire had broken out in his shop in the year 1996-97.

(i