1 Tenant is in revision. Both the Courts below have concurrently held the tenant liable to be evicted under Section 13 of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act III of 1949 (for short ‘the 1949 Act’) from a shop as mentioned in the head note of the petition (herein-after referred to as the demised premises).

2 Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the orders passed by the Courts below. It has been argued that the eviction petition filed by landlord is with an intent to get physical possession thereof in order to re-let the same at a higher rate of rent. He submits that qua other tenants in the same premises eviction orders were got passed in the years 2017 and 2019. Those tenants are still occupying the premises even after 8 years of eviction orders and the landlord has opted not to file execution against them. It has been further contended that the bonafide need projected by the landlord is that he needs front, back and first floor of the building, however, he admitted in his cross-examination that no eviction petition has been filed against tenants of the ground floor. Thus the bonafide need projected by the landlord stands settled. Lastly counsel for the petitioner accuses respondent-landlord guilty of concealment. It has been eloquently argued that respondent miserably failed to comply with the statutory requirement of disclosing the other properties in his possession in the same urban area. Landlord admitted in his cross examination that another property situated opposite to the demised premises known as Khorana Centre belongs to him. Four to five offices on the first floor of the said building are lying vacant, however, landlord failed to plead the same in the eviction petition.

3 It has been further contended that in the said building there was a tenant working under the name and style of Havmor Ice cream parlor. The tenant died during the pendency of the present proceedings. The said property was let out by the landlord to some other tenant. In the said building there was another shop being operated under the name and style of Anandpur Sweets. The same was got vacated and has been now let out to a Popular Chicken Centre. Referring to the cross-examination of the landlord, counsel for the petitioner submits that the landlord having admitted of being in possession of another building in the same urban area is not entitled to claim bonafide need in terms of statutory requirements of Section 13(3) of the 1949 Act.

4 Per contra learned counsel for the respondent-landlord submits that the petitioner requires demised shop along with the shops of back side and the shops of first floor for starting general-cum-departmental store. The landlord is already running business of herbal products, dry fruits and raw material for natural cosmetics. He requires the present shop for starting business. It has been contented that there are total 7 shops in the property in question. The landlord intends to remove the intervening walls in the 7 shops and wants to merge them into one big departmental store. Counsel for the respondent-landlord has drawn attention of this Court to the averments made in para 4 (b) of the petition wherein the petitioner specifically pleaded regarding a shop in his possession at Khourana Center. Counsel thus submits that the plea raised with respect to concealment is misplaced. Counsel for the respondent-landlord does not deny the fact of there being eviction orders passed against other tenants occupying shops in the same building and submits that the execution qua those orders will be filed after the landlord gets eviction order in the present two petitions as well. He submits that the landlord is not expected to lose rent qua those shops, as the projected need would show that the building can be put to use only after all the shops on ground floor as well as first floor come to his possession.

5 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.

6 It is not in dispute that t