JUDGMENT

Karamjit Singh, J. (Oral)

This order will dispose of the present civil revision petition filed by petitioner/tenant Mohhamed Ilyas for setting aside the eviction order dated 31.3.2016 passed by the Court of Rent Controller, Malerkotla, whereby the rent petition filed by respondent/landlord under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restrictions Act, 1949 (in short the Act) was accepted and judgment dated 16.3.2023 passed by the Appellate Authority, Sangrur whereby the appeal filed by petitioner against the eviction order dated 31.3.2016 has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed an ejectment petition under the Act against the petitioner seeking his eviction from shop in question on the grounds of non-payment of rent, house tax and personal necessity as the rented premises is required by the respondent to settle his son, who has completed his studies.

3. The rent petition has contested by the petitioner, who filed written reply wherein the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was admitted but the other averments of the rent petition were denied.

4. The learned Rent Controller framed the following issues:-

i. Whether the respondent is liable to pay house tax? OPA

ii. Whether the petitioner requires the demised premises for his personal requirement? OPA

iii. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR

iv. Whether the respondent No.1 is liable to be ejected from the demised premise? OPA

v. Relief.

5. In order to prove his case, landlord himself appeared as AW-1 and also examined AW-2 Charanjit Singh draftsman and AW-3 Mohd. Musthaq.

6. On the other hand, tenant himself appeared as RW-2 and also examined RW-1 Mohd. Parvez Bhatti, photographer; RW-3 Iqbal Singh; RW-4 Mehmood; RW-5 Abdul Shakoor and RW-6 Vishavjyoti Attraya Notary Advocate and also produced receipt Ex.R16 regarding payment of house tax.

7. After hearing both the parties, the learned Rent Controller held that the ground of personal necessity stands proved and consequently the rent petition was allowed vide order dated 31.3.2016. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said eviction order was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide judgment dated 16.3.2023. Both the Courts below held that the shop in question is required by the respondent to start the business of his son who has completed his studies and is unemployed.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that respondent is having 3 other shops apart from the shop in dispute and the said shops could be used by the respondent to start the business of his son. It is further submitted that son of respondent is already running general store in Teliya Bazar Malerkotla and as such the necessity pleaded by the respondent is not honest and it is not need of the respondent and rather it is a greed. The counsel for the appellant further submits that the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse to the facts and evidence on record.

9. The counsel for the respondent/caveator while supporting the eviction order and the judgment passed by the Appellate Authority, submits that the requirement spelt out by the respondent is a bona fide requirement, as the shop in question is required by the respondent to start the business of his son, who has already completed his studies and is not doing any job.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prativa Devi v. T.V. Krishanan (1996)5 SCC 353 has held that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement and Courts have no concern to dictate to the landlord as to how and in what manner he should liv