JUDGMENT

Mr. Anupinder Singh Grewal, J.

The revision petition is directed against the judgments of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority whereby the petition preferred by the respondents/landlords for eviction of the petitioner/tenant from the demised premises has been allowed and the appeal thereagainst has been dismissed respectively.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant submitted that the respondents/landlords could not prove that their requirement was bonafide especially when they are occupying another premises and the petition had been preferred in a malafide manner solely for the purpose of evicting the petitioner who are the lawful occupants of the premises. The respondents/landlords had pleaded that they require the premises for running a restaurant but they are already running a restaurant along with a hotel which is owned by them. The respondents/landlords were also running another business in the name and style of M/s Lucky Gift House at Ghanta Ghar Chowk, Amritsar which had been concealed by them. The petitioner had placed on record the requisite documents to indicate the operation of the restaurant but the same had been erroneously discarded by the Courts below. He has relied upon the judgments of this Court in the cases of Paramjit Singh v. Jagat Singh , 2014(2) RCR (Civil) 774, Madan Lal (deceased) through his Lrs v. Hardeep Kaur, 2014(12) RCR (Civil) 485, Harbans Singh and another v. Balwinder Singh and other, 2020(2) RCR (Rent) 119, Randhir Singh Rohilla v. Rajbir , 2015(33) RCR (Civil) 112, in support of his submission that the necessity of the landlord was not bonafide.

3. Learned counsel for the caveator/respondent submitted that the respondents/landlords being the best judge of their requirement had been able to prove their bonafide by cogent evidence and this Court ought not to interfere with the findings of the fact recorded by the authorities below. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh , 2014 (9) SCC 78 , Daya Rani and another v. Shabbir Ahmed, 2019(2) RCR (Rent) 365, Uday Shankar Upadhyay and others v. Naveen Maheshwari, 2010(1) SCC 503, Atma S. Berar v. Mukhtiar Singh , 2003(2) SCC 3 and Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. 1998(8) SCC 119 and the judgments of this Court in the cases of Varinder Singh and another v. Surinder Kaur, 2020(1) RCR (Rent) 265 and Vinod Kohli v. Keemti Lai , 2023(1) RCR (Rent) 621.

4. Heard. The demised premises which comprise a shop is stated to have been rented out to the petitioner in the year 1989 @ Rs. 250/- per month. The shop had been purchased by the respondents in the year 2000. The respondents/landlords had preferred the petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for eviction of the petitioner/tenant on the ground that they bonafide require it for operating a restaurant for the hotel which they are running in the name of Lucky Guest House. The demised premises adjoins the hotel. The respondents expressed their desire to run the restaurant along with Arvinder Singh, who is the son of respondent No. 1. He is a postgraduate and does not have any independent business. It was pleaded by them that they do not own any other place for the purpose of running restaurant and neither have they obtained eviction of any other premises within the urban area of Amritsar.

5. The respondents/landlords had also stated that they intend to set up a restaurant in the open space wh