The presumption of the genuineness of the landlord's requirement unless proven otherwise and the consideration that technicalities in pleading statutory ingredients would not be a ground by itself to dismiss the petition if no prejudice was caused to the tenant.

JUDGMENT

Manjari Nehru Kaul, J. (Oral) - The petitioner-tenant is impugning the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below i.e. Rent Controller and Appellate Authority, Ferozepur vide which he was ordered to be evicted from the demised shop (as detailed in para 2 of the judgment of the Rent Controller).

Parties to the lis hereinafter shall be referred to by their original positions in the rent petition.

2. The landlady filed eviction petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, 'the Act') on the grounds (i) that the tenant had failed to pay the arrears of rent from July, 2011 till date and had also not paid the house tax as well as the water tax charges despite her repeated requests to him (ii) that the landlady required the shop for the necessity of her son Kushal Pal, aged 23 years, who after completing his diploma in Computer Engineering had been unable to secure any job. Hence, the landlady wanted to settle him by setting up a shop of computer and mobile accessories, so that he could not only earn his livelihood but also maintain himself as well as his mother i.e. the landlady. Besides this, it was also averred by the landlady that she did not own or possess any other suitable place in the area concerned nor had she vacated any such premises in the urban area of Ferozepur City.

3. On the other hand, the tenant opposed the eviction petition on the ground that requirement pleaded by the landlady was neither genuine nor bonafide. The tenant also took an objection that the rent petition was not maintainable as the landlady had not pleaded the necessary requirement of Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the Act.

4. Upon consideration of the material and other evidence led, both the Courts below concurrently held that the requirement of the landlady was genuine and accordingly ordered the tenant to hand over the vacant possession of the shop to the landlady. Hence, the instant revision petition.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the tenant has vehemently contended that the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below are illegal and perverse being contrary to the settled law, and deserved to be set aside.

6. Learned counsel further submits that the Courts below failed to appreciate that the landlady had mortgaged the adjoining shop to the tenant in the year 2011 from which it could be clearly inferred that the requirement of the landlady was not at all genuine else she would have not mortgaged the adjoining shop and would have instead used the same for the purpose for which she was now seeking the eviction of the tenant. It has also been urged by the learned counsel that the landlady did not even have the financial capacity to start any business, therefore, the eviction of the tenant could not have been ordered. It has still further been argued by the learned counsel that in her eviction petition, the landlady had nowhere pleaded that her son was not in possession of any other shop or that he had vacated any such shop within the urban area of Ferozepur, without any sufficient reason. Learned counsel has, thus, vehemently argued that since the landlady had failed to plead the statutory requirement, no amount of evidence could fill in the said lacuna.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the landlady while controverting the submissions made by the counsel opposite, has contended that the son of the landlady completed his diploma in the year 2012, therefore, the necessity to settle him arose only thereafter. Hence, merely because the adjoining shop had been mortgaged by the landlady in the year 2011 it could not be a ground to question her bonafides to set up a business for her son in the demised shop. Learned counsel still further has submitted that the landlady as well as her son, Kushal Pal, while stepping into the witness box had clarified that neither were they in possession of any shop nor had they vacated any shop in the urban area of Ferozepur city, without sufficient cause. Thus, it h