JUDGMENT :

Gurbir Singh, J.

Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 27.04.2018, passed by learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar, whereby Ejectment Petition filed by the respondent under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (as amended up to date) (for brevity - the Act), for ejectment of the petitioner from the shop (as detailed in head note of the plaint) in question, has been allowed. Further challenge is to the order dated 11.10.2023, passed by learned Appellate Authority, Jalandhar, whereby appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and the aforesaid order of learned Rent Controller has been affirmed.

2. The parties, hereinafter, are being addressed as per their status in the Ejectment Petition.

3. Brief facts of the case, as culled out from the paper-book, are that the respondent/landlord filed a petition for ejectment of the petitioner/tenant from the shop in question on various grounds. It was pleaded by the landlord that there were three shops and a residential house on the property, as detailed in the head note of the petition. Out of those three shops, one shop was let out to the tenant, who was supposed to pay monthly rent and increased rent from time to time, as agreed. The tenant was in arrears of rent since July 2012. He, without consent of the landlord, has also made additions and alterations in the demised premises. The landlord bonafidely required the shop in question for his own use and occupation as his son wanted to convert his three shops into a showroom to start business of computer accessories and mobile phones. On the other hand, the tenant had got his own commercial complex on the road and many other commercial properties in the nearby areas. Apart from all this, the tenant was stated to be a source of nuisance to the landlord as he used to quarrel and create scene on the demand of rent by the landlord. It was also alleged that the tenant was creating troubles on various issues for the landlord on daily basis. So, Ejectment Petition was filed on all these grounds.

4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, the learned Rent Controller allowed the Ejectment Petition with costs, vide impugned order dated 27.04.2018 on the ground of personal necessity only. The appeal filed against the ejectment order was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 11.10.2023.

5. Learned counsel for the tenant has submitted that during pendency of the appeal filed by the petitioner, he also filed application for framing of fresh issues and for remanding the case or in the alternative, for seeking report from the Trial Court. Another application was also moved by the tenant for amendment of his written reply to the amended petition but both these applications were dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority.

6. Learned counsel for the tenant has further argued that impugned orders are not sustainable and are liable to be set aside because the showroom, as desired by the landlord, cannot be opened from the demised premises and three shops of the landlord cannot be converted into one showroom. As per building bye-laws, no further additional construction can be raised over the property in question. It has also been submitted that basic ingredients of personal necessity have not been proved on record because neither son of the landlord is dependent upon his father, nor he has any intention to open the business in the demised premises. The shop in question was rented out to M/s Bhagwati Trading Co. which is a partnership concern and had been paying rent to the landlord. So, the landlord has failed to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and has no locus standi to file the Ejectment Petition because the necessary party was M/s Bhagwati Trading Co. which has not been impleaded as party in the Ejectment Petition. By way of amendment, the petitioner wants to change the entire defence. He wants to take the plea that