JUDGMENT :

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the tenant seeking setting aside of the order dated 05.11.2022 passed by learned Rent Controller, Amritsar, whereby Eviction Petition filed by the landlady/respondent No.1 under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, has been allowed; AND order dated 09.11.2023 passed by learned Appellate Authority, Amritsar; whereby the Rent Appeal filed by the petitioner/tenant/respondent No.3 in the Eviction Petition, has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the landlady/respondent No.1 had filed a Rent Petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) for ejectment of the petitioner and performa respondents No.2 and 3 herein from the demised premises on grounds of: (a) non-payment of rent; (b) demises premises being unfit and unsafe to human habitation; (c) bonafide requirement; and (d) on ground of subletting. Vide judgment dated 05.11.2022 passed by learned Rent Controller, Amritsar, the landlady’s Petition was allowed as landlady succeeded in proving that arrears of rent were subsisting against the petitioner; and landlady succeeded in proving her bonafide requirement; and that the demised premises were unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The relevant para is as under: -

“21. In view of my findings on the above said issues, petition of the petitioner succeeds and the same is hereby allowed and respondents are directed to pay the arrears of rent and to hand over the vacant possession of the demised shop to the petitioner within period of one month from date of passing of this order, failing which, petitioner shall be entitled to execute this order through the process of court and as per the law and rules. The petitioner is also awarded proportionate costs. Memo of costs be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to the record room after due compilation.”

3. The Rent Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority, Amritsar vide judgment dated 09.11.2023 Hence, present Revision Petition by the Tenant.

4. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that learned Courts below were in patent error in directing the eviction of the petitioner from the demised premises as they failed to take into account that landlady had failed to step into witness box. It is submitted that GPA of the landlady, who is also her daughter, had appeared as AW1. However while appearing as AW1, GPA of the landlady has admitted that she does not know about the contents of the Rent Note; that she does not have any knowledge about the execution of the Rent Note; although she is appearing as Attorney on behalf of her mother but she does not know the facts of the case; although she has Power of attorney Ex.A1 from her mother, but she has not been authorised/instructed by her mother to file Eviction Petition. It is contended that therefore, landlady has failed to establish the grounds taken in the Eviction Application as her own Attorney has admitted that she does not know facts of the case.

5. It is further submitted that by learned counsel for the petitioner that both the courts below have failed to take into consideration that the landlord as well as her daughter are residents of Muzaffar Nagar, Uttar Pradesh whereas the demised premises are situated in Amritsar. It is highly improbable that the respondent who has pleaded that she is unable to move or for that matter her daughter who is settled in UP would come and run a physiotherapy Centre in Amritsar. Further absolutely no evidence has been led by the landlady or her daughter that she is having any qualification/education pertaining to physiotherapy or has any experience of running a Physiotherapy clinic. Therefore, bonafide necessity set up by the respondent No. 1 is only a made-up ground to seek eviction of the tenants.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Ld. Courts below have