Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) THE tenant is in revision against the order of eviction passed by both the Courts below.
(2.) THE landlords filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short "the Act"] in order to seek eviction of the tenant from the demised premises (shop) on the ground of personal necessity. In the eviction petition, they alleged that: (b) That the Petitioner No. 1 who is now has exclusive right of ownership of the shop in dispute for his own use and occupation. The Petitioner No. 1 doing the business of Hardware in a rented shop situated at a distance of fifty feet away from the shop in dispute. The Petitioner No. 1 requires the shop in dispute for his own business, as the landlord of Petitioner No. 1 compelling him to vacate the shop in the hands of Petitioner No. 1. One of the shop adjoining to the shop in dispute is used by the Petitioner No. 1 for his car garage as the width of that shop is very less and the shop in dispute is only suitable for the Petitioner No. 1 to carry on his business, hence the Petitioner No. 1 bona fide requires the shop in dispute for his own use and occupation. (c) That the Petitioner No. 1 does not own or possess any other premises as the shop in dispute within the municipal limits of Tanda and has not vacated any, after the passing of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, except the shop falling on the west of the shop in dispute, which is being used by the Petitioner No. 1 as Garage for parking his car. Another shop falling to the east of the demised shop is in possession of Mohan Singh, Tenant, against whom the brother of the Petitioner No. 1 i.e. Petitioner No. 2, has filed abetment petition. Another shop is in rent with photographer and is under the control of Petitioner No. 2. The Petitioner No. 1 is running his business in one shop which on rent with him and also in adjoining shop, in which he is a co -sharer of just 1/3rd share. The main emphasis laid by learned Counsel for the Petitioner is on the issue that the Respondents/landlords had another shop in their possession being co -sharers, therefore, they could not have maintained the application for eviction. In this regard, the learned Rent Controller had observed that all the Respondents/landlords are occupying three shops, one in which Petitioner No. 1 is doing the business of hardware, the second shop has been got vacated from Mohan Singh and third one is being used as car garage. The learned Rent Controller, thus, ordered eviction while discussing issues Nos. 4A and 4B. Issue No. 4A was decided against the landlords and regarding issue No. 4B it was observed that no evidence was led by the Petitioner/tenant to prove that the landlords have vacated any such building without sufficient cause after the commencement of the Act. The learned Appellate Authority also dismissed the appeal of the tenant by observing that "the premises where Petitioner No. 1 and his brother are doing business is the joint shop. The two brothers are joint with their father. The Petitioner No. 1 is thus left with only two shops which he claims to be owned by him. In one shop, he is keeping his car and using it as a garage. The other shop is the demised shop." It was observed that the tenant cannot force the landlords to remain joint in business with their father if they wanted to start their own business as it is well settled that the tenant cannot dictate terms. It was also observed that "if brother of Petitioner No. 1 has let out the shop to Bellwood Photographer during tendency of the abetment petition, present landlord -Petitioner No. 1 cannot be punished for that and it cannot be said that it reflects lack of bona fide on his part. If Petitioner No. 1 was to let out any premises, he could let out the shop where he is keeping his car. He has not done so, which shows that he really wants to occupy the shop in dispute after it is vacated by the tenant."
(3.) IN view of the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition for the purpose of taking a view different from the view taken by learned Courts below. Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed. No costs.;