The eviction was upheld on grounds of bona fide requirement and established landlord-tenant relationship, negating the appellant's claims.

JUDGMENT :

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral)

1. Challenge in the present revision petition is to the judgment dated 14.07.2022 passed by the Rent Controller, Jalandhar vide which the eviction petition filed by the respondent under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the 1949 Act') as amended up to date, for the eviction of the present petitioner from the shop in question situated at Mohalla No.29, Jalandhar Cantt had been allowed. Challenge is also to the judgment and decree dated 22.10.2024 vide which the appeal filed by the present petitioner had been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two grounds of challenge to the judgments passed by the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority. First ground raised on behalf of the petitioner is to the effect that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent and once there was no relationship of landlord and tenant then the question of respondent seeking eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question does not arise. It is further submitted that the respondent-Pawan Kumar, who had appeared as PW1 had in his cross-examination, stated that he had not taken any consent in writing from all the legal heirs before filing the petition and had also not disclosed to them about filing of the present eviction petition. It is submitted that from the said piece of evidence, it was apparent that other co-sharers were objecting to the said eviction petition and thus, on the said ground alone, the eviction petition deserves to be dismissed. It is further submitted that since the respondent-landlord was claiming land-lordship on the basis of being the son of Parmeshwari Devi, who was the admitted landlord, thus, it was incumbent upon the respondent-landlord to provide details of all the legal heirs of the said Parmeshwari Devi and to have consent of all the said legal heirs and since the same was missing, thus, the impugned judgments deserve to be set aside and the present revision petition deserves to be allowed.

3. Second ground of challenge raised on behalf of the petitioner in the present revision petition is that the eviction petition had been filed by the respondent-landlord for his and his sons' necessity. It is submitted that in the cross-examination of the said PW1, the respondent-landlord had admitted that his son was doing job in MES in the year 2017 and the said fact had not been disclosed in the eviction petition and thus, the same proves that the requirement of the respondent is not bona fide.

4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and has perused the paper book and finds that impugned judgments passed by the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority are in accordance with law and deserve to be upheld and the revision petition being meritless, deserves to be dismissed for the reasons stated hereinafter.

5. It is not in dispute that the respondent-Pawan Kumar had filed a petition under Section 13 of the 1949 Act for eviction of the premises in question which was shop No.l, which was part of property No.9, shown as red in the site plan attached with the eviction petition and was situated at Mohalla No.29, Jalandhar Cantt. The boundaries of the said property had also been mentioned in the eviction petition. The eviction was sought on three grounds. First being, that the present petitioner was in arrears of rent w.e.f. July, 2000 at the rate of Rs.250/- per month. Second being bona fide requirement and third being that the petitioner-tenant had ceased to occupy the shop in question from about last one year. The pl