Eviction petitions under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act require landlords to demonstrate bona fide necessity, with limited appellate review when concurrent findings exist.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

Two connected civil revisions, one filed by the tenant, whereas the other filed by the landlord have come up for final disposal.

2. CR No.78 of 2022 has been filed by the landlords in order to challenge the order dated 21.05.2014, passed by the Rent Controller, while dismissing the petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1949 Act'), which in appeal was affirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 30.09.2021.

3. CR No.3174 of 2022 has been filed by the tenant to challenge the correctness of concurrent orders passed by the Rent Controller which in appeal was affirmed by the Appellate Authority while allowing landlady's petition under Section 13B of the 1949 Act while ordering eviction of the tenant-petitioner from the front portion of the first floor measuring 450 square feet approximately with common bathroom of SCO 33, Sector 33-D, Chandigarh.

4. At the relevant time, the provisions of the 1949 Act were applicable to the area of Chandigarh. Under Section 13 of the 1949 Act, various grounds on which the landlord is entitled to seek eviction of the tenant have been enlisted. Section 13 B of the 1949 Act enables non-resident Indian to recover immediate possession of residential or scheduled building and/or non residential building. This is a special privilege granted to the Non Resident Indians to seek immediate possession of the building, if the owner requires the premises for his or her bonafide use.

5. In Civil Revision No.78 of 2022, the landlords (the petitioners herein) sought eviction of the tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent and bonafide personal necessity which was dismissed by the Courts below on the following grounds:-

(i) The entire medical record of the parents has not been produced to prove that the father of Sh. Harjinder Chahal suffered a heart attack and is now settled in Mohali, whereas Mother of Sh. Harjinder Chahal suffered paralysis attack and she has come back to Mohali.

(ii) No evidence has been led to prove that their business is hit by the recession in Germany.

(iii) Second floor of the premises was let out in January, 2008.

(iv) Half portion of the first floor is vacant but the landlords have not started any business.

6. In Civil Revision No.3174 of 2022, the Rent Controller has found that the landlady has successfully proved her bonafide necessity as her husband wants to come back to India and take care of his aged and ailing parents.

7. This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paper book along with the requisitioned record.

8. In the considered opinion of the Court, first of all it would be appropriate to take up Civil Revision No.3174 of 2022, for discussion.

9. The learned counsel representing the petitioner (tenant) has forcefully contended that the previous petition on identical grounds for eviction of tenant has been dismissed by the Rent Controller which in appeal has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority. He submits that the finding of the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority in a subsequent petition is contradictory and therefore, not reliable. He further submits that the landlady has failed to prove that her need is bonafide and the petition was actually filed by her. He submitted that comparison of the signatures of the landlady on the original petition with the signatures on the passport prove that the petition was not filed by her. He further submitted that Sh. Harjinder