JUDGMENT

Ms. Nidhi Gupta, J.

Present Revision Petition has been filed by the tenant seeking setting aside of impugned judgment dated 21.04.2018 passed by learned Appellate Authority, reversing judgment dated 02.11.2016 passed by learned Rent Controller, Gurdaspur, whereby application filed by respondent-landlord under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent-landlord filed eviction application dated 26.03.2013 (Annexure P1) seeking eviction of petitioner from shop in question/demised shop, on grounds of non-payment of rent and personal necessity. Upon notice, petitioner appeared and filed written statement in which it was categorically pleaded by him that rent petition was liable to be dismissed on ground of concealment of material facts as respondent-landlord was in possession of a shop which was situated at a distance of 15-20 feet away from the demised shop. It was further averred in the written statement that during the pendency of rent petition, respondent had sold the other shop vide sale deed dated 29.09.2014 (Exhibit R1/Annexure P2). Accordingly, learned Rent Controller vide judgment dated 02.11.2016 had dismissed respondent's rent petition.

3. Aggrieved of the said order, respondent preferred an appeal before learned Appellate Authority who vide impugned judgment dated 21.04.2018 set aside judgment dated 02.11.2016 passed by learned Rent Controller by holding that there is no concealment. Hence, present Revision Petition.

4. It is vehemently submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that rent petition (Annexure P1) was filed by the respondent on 26.03.2013. However, perusal of eviction petition shows that respondent had intentionally not mentioned anything in regard to the other properties owned by him which were situated within municipal limits of Gurdaspur, nor had he mentioned other material particulars which were mandatory in an eviction application under Section 13 of the Act. It is further submitted that during pendency of the rent petition, respondent-landlord sold one shop measuring 160 square feet which was located just 15 feet away from the demised shop by way of registered sale deed dated 22.09.2014 (Exhibit R1/Annexure P2). Learned counsel further submits that this fact has not been denied by the respondent in his cross-examination and in fact, respondent has admitted sale of said shop which is 15-20 feet away from the demised shop and also admitted his signatures on the said registered sale deed. It is submitted that accordingly, finding of the learned Appellate Authority that shop sold by the respondent-landlord was a joint property and therefore, it was not mandatory to mention particulars of joint properties in the eviction application, is totally perverse and misreading of evidence on record.

5. It is further submitted that there is no document on record whatsoever to show that shop sold by the respondent was a joint property. Even there is no whisper in the evidence of respondent-landlord that said shop was a joint property. Accordingly, finding of the learned Appellate Authority that shop sold by respondent-landlord on 22.09.2014 is a joint property is perverse and as a sole ground for reversing well reasoned judgment of learned Rent Controller does not stand scrutiny and therefore, impugned order deserves to be set aside.

6. It is further submitted that during pendency of the appeal, respondent-landlord had moved an appl