JUDGMENT

Mr. Rajbir Sehrawat, J. (Oral)

This is a petition filed by the petitioner/landlord under Section 15 (5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, challenging the judgment dated 04.09.2017 passed by the Additional District Judge/Appellate Authority, Gurdaspur, whereby rent appeal filed by the respondent/tenant has been allowed and the eviction petition filed by the petitioner/landlord has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts, as mentioned in the pleadings, are that the petitioner filed a rent eviction petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), asserting therein that he is the owner and landlord of the premises in question. The respondent has been in possession of the premises as a tenant under the petitioner on the rent at the rate of Rs.200/- per month. The respondent-tenant has not been paying the rent since the year 2008, therefore, he is liable to be evicted. Secondly, the petitioner was in requirement of the premises for his personal use and occupation because his son, namely Raghav Kohli was unemployed and aged about 22 years. The petitioner wanted his son to run independent business on the premises in question. The premises in question opens in the house of the petitioner and thus is suitable for opening the business for his son. To meet the requirements of the Act, he also pleaded in the petition that the petitioner was not in possession of any other vacant premises for business of his son in the same urban area nor had he vacated any such building in the said urban area after commencement of the Act.

3. Finding the case of the petitioner to be substantiated, the Rent Controller allowed the eviction petition. Aggrieved against the same, the respondent-tenant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The said appeal has been allowed; thereby; denying eviction. Hence, the present petition has been preferred by the petitioner-landlord.

4. Arguing the case, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has proved on record all the ingredients; as required under the Act for seeking eviction of the respondent from the premises in question. The petitioner is not having any other shop for establishing his son in the business in the same urban area. Nor has the petitioner vacated any shop in the area only for getting the present shop vacated from the tenant. Qua the findings recorded by the lower Appellate Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the lower Appellate Court has recorded perverse findings to the extent that it has recorded that the son of the petitioner has already established his business in the adjoining shop. There is no evidence to show the said fact. Learned counsel has submitted that while appearing as a witness, the petitioner himself had explained that the son being unemployed was only sitting on the counter on the shop being run by the petitioner; and that it was not his independent business. The son is not even required to be examined as a witness to show his requirement. Learned counsel has relied upon judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case titled as Mehmooda Gulshan v. Javaid Hussain Mungloo , 2017 (1) RCR (Rent) 273. Moreover, it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord. It is the decision of the landlord to get the property vacated, if he requires the same for his purpose. Therefore, the findings recorded by the lower Appellate Authority deserve to be reversed and the findings recorded by the Rent Controller deserve to be upheld.

5. On the other