The landlord's bona fide need for the demised premises and the tenant's liability to pay rent were crucial in determining the outcome of the case.

JUDGMENT

Tribhuvandahiya, J. - This is tenant's revision petition under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1949').

2. The facts of the case in brief are, the respondent/landlord (hereinafter referred to as 'landlord') filed ejectment application under Section 13 of the Act of 1949 against the petitioner/tenant (hereinafter referred to as 'tenant') from the demised premises/shop in question on the grounds of non-payment of arrears of rent and personal necessity. The tenant took the shop on rent on 03.01.1997 at the rate of Rs. 2,000 per month. He was stated to be in arrears thereof w.e.f. April, 1999 till filing of the ejectment application on 06.10.2014, and, therefore, was liable to be evicted from the shop. It was also pleaded that the shop was required by the landlord for his urgent need as he wanted to use and occupy the same as office for the adjoining shop, and he had no other shop or office in the building concerned nor had he vacated any shop after commencement of the Act.

3. The tenant appeared before the Rent Controller and admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He, however, stated that the rent was being paid regularly to the landlord till he refused to accept it from him. He further stated that the landlord had two-three other shops in the urban area, adjoining the shop in question, and, therefore, his need with respect to the demised premises was not bona fide.

4. The Rent Controller assessed provisional rent of the premises at Rs. 2,000 per month, vide order dated 13.07.2015, from 06.10.2011 to 06.08.2015 (for 46 months amounting Rs. 1,02,030). The same was paid by the tenant under protest as per his statement recorded by the Controller in short order dated 05.08.2015. The Controller, however, ordered his eviction, vide order dated 25.04.2017, by holding that the landlord was entitled to possession of the demised premises on account of bona fide necessity, and also to arrears of rent from April, 1999 to 05.10.2011 at the rate of Rs. 1,000 per month, which comes to Rs. 1,50,000. The findings were affirmed by the appellate authority vide judgment dated 27.09.2019.

5. Learned counsel for the tenant has argued that the authoritiesbelow could not have ordered eviction from the demised premises, as the landlord has concealed material facts. Besides, the landlord did not require the premises for bona fide necessity, as he was in possession of other shops in the vicinity and had also rented out the nearby shop to one Mahender Singh @ Kala before filing of the ejectment application. All these facts were concealed by him from the Court. Therefore, there is a clear violation of the provisions of Section 13(1)(a) of the Act, which require the landlord to plead that he was not occupying any other building and had not vacated any building without reasonable cause after commencement of the Act. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon judgment of this Court in Randhir Singh Rohilla v. Rajbir, 2015(4) PLR 325. It was further contended that findings of the Authorities below holding the landlord entitled to recovery of rent, were not sustainable since the landlord became owner of the property only on 06.08.2013, when the rent deed in question was executed between the parties for monthly rent of Rs. 2,000.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the landlord contends, both the Court/Authorities rightly ordered eviction from the demised premises. The landlord's need is bona fide, and the ejectment application has been filed after due compliance of all the requirements of Section 13 of the Act of 1949. He further contends that the landlord is not in possession or occupation of any other premises in the urban area concerned, nor has he rented out any other premises to anybody. There is no evidence to that effect on record either.

7. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and record perused.

8. To consider th