A landlord's asserted bona fide need for premises is presumed genuine provided statutory conditions are met, and it is not the tenant's province to dictate the landlord's use of property or business planning; findings of fact by lower courts are not interfered with in revision unless palpably perverse.

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J.

1. The present civil revision petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 19.04.2018 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Garhshankar, whereby the eviction petition filed by the respondent No.1-landlord under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) has been allowed and the petitioners-tenants have been directed to hand over vacant possession of the demised premises and the order dated 20.11.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Court vide which appeal filed by the petitioners against the order of eviction dated 19.04.2018 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Garhshankar has also been dismissed.

2. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition are that respondent No.1 claimed himself to be a co-owner and landlord of the shop in dispute, which was initially let out to Sarabjit Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, at a monthly rent of ₹1000/-. After the demise of the original tenant, the petitioners stepped into his shoes and continued in possession of the demised premises as tenants. Respondent No.1 sought eviction of the petitioners primarily on the grounds that they had fallen into arrears of rent with effect from 01.06.2009, that they were habitual defaulters in payment of rent and that respondent No.1 required the premises for his bona fide personal necessity as he intended to return to his native place and start his own business in the demised premises along with adjoining shops.

3. Upon notice, the petitioners-tenants appeared and contested the petition by filing a written statement raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, locus standi of respondent No.1 and applicability of the Act. On merits, it was pleaded that the agreed rate of rent was ₹500/- per month and not ₹1000/- per month, that the property in dispute did not fall within the municipal limits of Mahilpur and, therefore, the provisions of the Act were not applicable, and that respondent No.1 was not the owner of the property, the same being Shamlat Deh. The bonafide necessity of respondent No.1 was also denied on the ground that he was well settled abroad.

4. The learned Rent Controller, on the basis of pleadings of the parties, framed the necessary issues and after appreciating the evidence led by both sides, returned findings in favour of respondent No.1 and ordered eviction of the petitioners vide order dated 19.04.2018 and the appeal preferred against the said order by the petitioners has also been dismissed vide order dated 20.11.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Court. Hence, the instant revision petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners had assailed the impugned orders by contending that the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller as well as the learned Appellate Court are erroneous, contrary to evidence on record, and suffer from material irregularity. It was argued that the rate of rent has been wrongly assessed and respondent No.1 had failed to establish bona fide necessity. The learned Rent Controller had not the jurisdiction to entertain the rent petition, as the disputed premises does not fall within the municipal limits so as to attract the provisions of the Act. It was further argued that respondent No.1 had not pleaded the necessary ingredients of clauses (b) and (c) of Section 13(3)(a) (i) of the Act and thus, the rent petition was liable to be dismissed. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment passed