The judgment emphasized the bonafide requirement of the landlord for eviction from a non-residential building for commercial purposes, interpreting Section 13 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J. - Two Civil Revision Nos.6988 and 6989 of 2010, filed by a common landlord against the same tenant shall stand disposed of. The learned counsel representing the parties are also common and the arguments were addressed jointly. In fact, two different rent petitions filed by the petitioner who has now died, with respect to two different shops, which are separated by a 10 ft. wide passage against a common tenant were consolidated by the Rent Controller on 10.05.2002, after noticing that the ground on which the eviction has been sought, is common. Both the rent petitions were disposed of by the Rent Controller by a common judgment ordering eviction of the tenants. By the same judgment two appeals filed by the tenant were allowed, assailing the correctness of which two revision petitions have been filed.

2. In the considered opinion of the Court, the following issues arise for adjudication:-

1. Is it mandatory to plead and prove that the immediate relatives for whose bonafide requirement the ejectment has been sought are dependant on the landlord?

2. Whether eviction of tenant from the non-residential building with regard to the bonafide necessity for commercial purpose is maintainable particularly when the landlord wishes to reconstruct the building in such a manner that he shifts the passage in between the two shops on one side so as to utilize the non-residential premises in a proper manner.

3. Some peculiar facts are required to be noticed.

4. The petitioner died on 2.12.2012. Now, he is represented by his legal representatives. Herein, the parties will be referred to as the landlord and the tenant. The landlord filed two petitions in the year 1999 seeking eviction of the respondent, from his two shops situated on Rani Jhansi Road, Ludhiana, measuring 14ft. X 10ft. approximately each. It was asserted that he is a retired person, aged about 82 years and he wants the possession of two shops so as to enable him to run business along with his grandson Sh. Manish Kapoor and Daughter-in-law Smt. Monika Kapoor. It was also asserted that he along with his grandson and daughter-in-law entered into a partnership deed in order to run the said business. The two shops in question are separated by a 10ft. wide passage which connects to the residential house located behind the shops. It has been asserted that the landlord wishes to demolish the two shops and reconstruct them into one shopping complex while shifting the passage to only one side. The respondent contested the petition while contending that the landlord does not have a bonafide requirement and the petition has been filed only to increase the rent. The Rent Controller ordered eviction of the tenants, whereas, the Appellate Authority has reversed the same.

5. This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and with their able assistance perused the judgments passed by the Courts below.

6. On the one hand, the learned counsel representing the landlord contends that the Appellate Authority has erred in reversing the order of eviction on the ground which are not made out, whereas, on the other hand the learned Senior counsel representing the respondent has contended as under:-

1. The landlord has not pleaded that his daughter-in-law and grandson are dependant on him.

2. The conduct of the landlord disentitles him from the order of eviction particularly when a previous petition filed by the landlord was withdrawn when the rent was increased.

3. The tenant has filed applications under Order 41 Rule 27 in order to prove the photographs to show that the daughter-in-law has now started working as a medical practitioner and she also lets out the aforesaid premises as a paying-guest accommodation for girls. The tenant has also tried to produce the recorded conversation between the landlord and the tenant, wherein, the landlord has stated that he will withdraw the petition if the rent is increased. In fact, the tape recorded conversation has alrea