The landlord seeking eviction on the ground of personal necessity must not be in occupation of any other property within the same urban area, as per Section 13 of the Act.

JUDGMENT

Manjari Nehru Kaul, J. (Oral) - The instant revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner tenant against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below whereby his eviction from a shop comprised in House No.1447-48 under the name and style of M/s R.S. Sweets Shop, near Deepak Electronic, Haibowal Khurd, Rajpura, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as 'demised premises') was ordered on the ground of personal necessity in a petition filed under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, 'the Act') by the respondent landlord.

2. The brief facts of the case as pleaded by the landlord while filing the aforementioned petition under Section 13 of the Act, may be noticed as thus: that the respondent was the owner landlord of the demised premises. The petitioner-tenant was inducted as a tenant in the shop in dispute, 25 years prior to the filing of the petition. A rent agreement was executed between the parties on 01.01.2005 and it was settled that the tenant would pay Rs.2,000/- per month as rent. Besides this, the tenant was also to pay for the electricity charges and all other charges as fixed by the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana and other departments. The terms and conditions of the tenancy were duly reduced into writing by way of a rent deed. The respondent landlord was in the business of sale of milk and milk products which he was carrying out by going to different houses morning and evening. However, on account of his advance age, he was finding it difficult and hence, he required the demises shop so that he could carry out his business from there. The respondent landlord claimed that he did not own or possess any other property within the municipal limits of Ludhiana which could be used for his aforementioned business, and he had not vacated any such property without sufficient cause after commencement of the Act. He, thus, required the demised premises for his business. In the written statement filed by the tenant petitioner, the tenant did not dispute the ownership of the landlord over the demised premises, he admitted to the landlord-tenant relationship between them and also admitted the rate of rent. However, he alleged that the rent note dated 01.01.2005 was a forged and fabricated document and the petitioner had concealed the factum of the execution of a written rent note between him and the landlord dated 24.12.2004, in the presence two marginal witnesses. It was also submitted that he had been regularly paying the monthly rent of Rs.2,000/- and last rent paid by him was on 10.02.2015 @ Rs.2,500/- per month. It was further submitted that besides this, the tenant had also been paying the licence fee to the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana for running his sweets shop and had also paid property tax to the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana. The bonafide personal necessity of the landlord was thus disputed on the ground that he had various other properties in the same locality including a property measuring 212 sq.yds. another property measuring 15 sq. yds. and yet another property measuring 121 sq. yds. at Haibowal Khurd, Ludhiana as per jamabandi for the year 2004-05. Furthermore, the son of the respondent landlord was running a cycle repairs shop and shoe shop in the same locality in addition to the rear portion of the demised premises having been let out to three different tenants by the landlord.

3. After appreciating the relevant material and other evidence led, the Rent Controller concluded that the landlord had successfully proved his bona fide necessity qua the demised premises. He thus, ordered eviction of the tenant from the demised premises. The Appellate Authority also upheld the findings of the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner-tenant. Hence, the instant revision petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant has vehemently argued that had the landlord actually been selling milk and milk products, he would ha