JUDGMENT

Mr. Anupinder Singh Grewal, J. (Oral)

The petitioner has challenged the judgments dated 20.05.2019 and 22.03.2023 whereby the Rent Controller has allowed the rent petition preferred by the respondent/landlord for eviction from demised premises on account of bona fide necessity and the appeal filed there against by the petitioner/tenant has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition for eviction has been erroneously allowed although the respondent/landlord could not make out a case for bona fide necessity.

3. Issue notice to the respondent. Mr. Dheeraj Mahajan, Advocate, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent and submits that the respondent has been able to prove the case for eviction and the findings of the Courts below do not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. He also submits that the respondent/landlord had sought eviction of the ground floor of the shop for using it as garage for his vehicles. He along with his family resides on the first floor while on the second floor, the landlord's brother-Naresh Kumar resides with his family. He further submits that the petitioner/tenant has not paid any rent since 2008 and the demised premises are lying vacant.

4. Heard. The respondent/landlord had filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for the ejectment of the petitioner/ tenant from the shop dimensions 16' x 9'6" marked ABCD as shown in the site plan situated at Sadar Bazar, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. The shop is stated to have been let out by the respondent/landlord in the year 1994 at a monthly rent of Rs.350/-.

5. AW-1-Jang Bahadur (respondent/landlord) and AW-2 Pankaj Malhotra s/o Jang Bahadur have categorically deposed in their respective affidavits filed before the Rent Controller that they had repeatedly requested the petitioner/tenant to vacate the shop in dispute as they required it for parking their vehicles which were being parked in the open on the main road. They along with their other family members wanted to use the shop in dispute as garage after making necessary alterations and repairs. There is no other suitable place for such use. They along with their family are residing on the first floor of the triple storey building in which shop in dispute is situated and it will be convenient for them to park vehicle on the ground floor.

6. It is apparent that the respondent/landlord had been able to make out his case for eviction from the demised premises on account of personal necessity. The need of the landlord has to be bona fide and it is up to the landlord to decide the nature of the business or activity for which he requires the premises. The petitioner/tenant has been unable to rebut that the necessity of the respondent/landlord was not bona fide.

7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner/tenant is a poor person and he may be permitted to retain the premises for some reasonable time.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner/tenant has not paid any rent since 2008 and in case, he wants to retain the premises, he be directed to pay the arrears of rent which had been assessed by the Rent Controller vide the order of ejectment dated 20.05.2019.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not in a position to pay the arrears of rent as the demised premises had closed due to loss suffered by the petitioner at his business during Covid-19 pandemic