JUDGMENT : 

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR , J.

1. This revision petition is directed against the concurrent findings of the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, vide which the petitioner/tenant (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) has been ordered to be evicted from the demised premises in a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), instituted by the respondents/landlords (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners) in Rent Petition No. RENT/2/2019 titled “Sita Ram Dhingra and another Vs. Mohinder Paul Bhardwaj”, vide judgments dated 03.02.2023 and 02.02.2026 respectively.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant and have gone through the material placed on the file.

3. Case of the petitioners/landlords is that they are owners-cum-landlords of the demised shop in which the respondent was inducted as a tenant about 40 years ago and presently, the rate of rent is Rs.1400/- per month. Petitioner No.1–Sita Ram Dhingra wants to get the shop vacated in question for starting his own business and he also needs the same to settle Sushant Sethi, who is the son of his divorced daughter Pooja Dhingra and petitioner No.2 has also no objection in this regard. Eviction of respondent was sought on the ground that the demised shop is required by the petitioners for their personal use and occupation as well as for the personal use and occupation of Sushant Sethi, maternal grandson of petitioner No.1.

4. Respondent in his reply admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant but took a plea that it is petitioner No.1 who is the owner-cum- landlord and petitioner No.2 has nothing to do with the demised premises. Petitioner No.1 had earlier filed an ejectment petition against one Vijay Kumar which was dismissed by the Rent Controller vide order dated 24.05.2002 and the appeal filed by petitioner No.1 was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide judgment dated 19.12.2003. The Appellate Authority held that petitioner No.1 was the owner of three shops including the shop in dispute and he has concealed the fact that the other two shops, except the shop in dispute, were lying vacant.

5. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-

1. Whether respondent is liable to be evicted from the property in dispute on account of arrears of rent and house tax? OPP

2. Whether respondent is liable to be evicted from the demised premises on account of personal use and occupation of the petitioner? OPP

3. Whether the respondent is liable to be evicted from the property in dispute on account of being in continuous source of nuisance? OPP

4. Whether the respondent is not a qualified doctor and is not entitled to run a clinic in the property in dispute? OPP

5. Whether the present petition is bad for misjoinder of necessary parties? OPR

6. Whether the petitioner has not come to the court with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts from the court? OPR

7. Relief.

6. Both the parties led their respective evidence and after hearing the parties, the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that petitioner No.1 requires the demised shop for starting his own business as well as to settle his maternal grandson Sushant Sethi. It was also held that a relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties and as per the judgment passed by Lok Adalat Ex.P-4, the entire property has been partitioned between the petitioners and the present petition has been filed by both of them against the respondent. It was also held that the respondent has failed to prove that petitioners own some other shop which is lying vacant and ordered eviction of the respondent from the demised premises vide judgment dated 03.02.2023.

7. Feeling aggrieved, the tenant preferred an appeal and the learned Appellate Authority has also dismissed the same vide judgment dated 02.02.2026 and the relevant portion/observations of the Appellate Authority are reproduced a