Under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, a landlord can seek eviction for personal necessity without being the owner of the premises.

JUDGMENT

Mrs. Alka Sarin, J.

This is a tenant's revision against the orders passed by both the Authorities ordering her eviction under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (Rent Act).

2. As per the landlord-respondent he is the owner/landlord of the house in question. The tenant-petitioner was inducted as a tenant on the second floor from 01.08.2006 at a monthly rent of Rs. 1500/- per month with an increase of 10% every year. The tenancy was oral. It was pleaded that the two children of the petitioner are married and his family has expanded and accommodation with him is insufficient and he needs the accommodation for his personal use to accommodate himself, his children along with their spouses. The ground of non-payment of rent was also raised. The tenant-petitioner contested the ejectment application and filed a written statement taking the plea that the landlord-respondent was not the owner of the property in question, the tenant-petitioner was being pressurized by two persons who were claiming rent from her - one was the landlord-respondent and the other was one Mr. Tirth also known as Harcharan Singh. It was averred that the landlord-respondent had not approached the Court with clean hands and had suppressed material facts and that the ejectment application was a counter blast to a civil suit filed by the tenant-petitioner. respondent which is pending and present petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. No replication was filed.

3. From the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed by the Rent Controller :

1. Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent ? OPP

2. Whether the petitioner requires the premises in question for his personal use and occupation ? OPP

3. Whether the present petition is not maintainable ? OPR

4. Whether the present petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ? OPR

5. Relief.

4. Vide order dated 12.02.2016 the Rent Controller accepted the ejectment application on both grounds and ordered eviction of the tenant-petitioner. The appeal of the tenant-petitioner was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 28.08.2018. Hence, the present revision petition.

5. Learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner has contended that both the Authorities have erred in allowing the ejectment application filed by the landlord-respondent who was not the owner of the property in question. It is submitted that the property in question is owned by one Romesh Manocha who executed a Power of Attorney in favour of Kirpal Singh on 29.10.1986. The said Kirpal Singh thereafter executed a Sub Power of Attorney in favour of the present landlord-respondent on 13.06.1994. On these facts it was argued that the ground of bonafide personal necessity was not available to the landlord-respondent because he was, at best, an attorney of the owner Romesh Manocha and no personal necessity of Romesh Manocha was ever pleaded. Reliance has been placed on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sheela v. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash [2002(1) RCR Rent 351] to contend that while seeking ejectment on the ground of bonafide requirement a landlord is required to allege and prove not only that he is a landlord but also that he is the owner of the premises. No arguments were addressed on the point of non-payment of rent.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the landlord-respondent argued that the scope of a revision petition challenging orders passed under the Rent Act is limited and cannot be equated with a second appeal. He contended that both the Authorities have concurrently found that the landlord-respondent requires the property in question for his and his family's bonafide necessity and the said findings deserve to be upheld. It was submitted that under the Rent Act a landlord need not be the owner of the premises.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paperbook.

8. The documents attached with the revision petition show that one Romesh Manocha executed a Pow