M.M.KUMAR, J. - (1.)THIS petition filed under Sub-section (5) of Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for brevity the Act) challenges concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below that the premises in dispute is liable to be handed over to the landlady-respondent because the necessity of her son has been established on record. It has been found that the son of the landlady-respondent, who is a photographer wishes to start business of photography and he has got training of photography business. It has further been held that the landlady-respondent has got no other shop in her possession in the concerned urban area, where the shop is situated. No mala fide has been attributed to the claim made by the landlady-respondent.
(2.)MR . Satinder Khanna, learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner has argued that the provisions of Section 13(3)(a)(iv) do not contemplate the eviction of a tenant from the rental premises unless it is shown that the residential building is required by the landlord for his son to be used as an office/consulting room to start his practice as a lawyer or a registered medical practitioner. According to the learned counsel, the personal necessity of the landlady should be confined to the grounds specified by Section 13(3)(a)(iv) of the Act. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramkubai since deceased by LRs. v. Hajarimal Dhokalchand Chandak, 1999(2) RCR(Rent) 213 SC : 1999(6) SCC 540. The learned counsel has argued that the Supreme Court has taken the view that son of the landlady wanted to establish Karyana business in the rented shop which was a ground specified under Section 3(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. He has also placed reliance on two judgments of this Court in the case of The Ferozepur Cooperative Printing and Publishing Society Ltd. v. Roshan Lal and another, 2000(1) RCR(Rent) 229 (P&H) : 2000(3) PLR 277 and Ravinder Kumar v. Gian Chand, 1986(2) RCR(Rent) 333 (P&H) : AIR 1987 P&H 31. According to the learned counsel if the ratio of these judgments are applied to the facts of the present case, the son of the landlady-respondent being a photographer is not covered by the afore-mentioned provision. The learned counsel urged that the intention of the legislature should be given full effect by confining the eviction to the necessity of a son who is lawyer or registered medical practitioner.
I have thoughtfully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and do not feel persuaded to accept the same. It would be appropriate to make a reference to the provisions of Section 13(3)(a) as it stood before the amendment incorporated by Punjab Act No. 29 of 1956 which reads as under :

"13. Eviction of Tenant. - (1) A tenant in possession of a building or rented land shall not be evicted therefrom in execution of a decree passed before or after the commencement of this Act or otherwise and whether before or after the termination of the tenancy, except in accordance with the provisions of this section (or in pursuance of an order made under Section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1947 as subsequently amended). (2) A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf. If the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the application is satisfied"
3.(a) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession;
i) in the case of a residential or scheduled building, if - a) he requires it for his own occupation : b) he is not occupying another residential or scheduled building, as the case may be in the urban area concerned; and c) he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause after the commencement of this Act, in the said urban area. ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]... (ii) In the case of non-residential building or rented land, if - a) he requires it for his own use; b) he is not occupying in the urban area concerned for the purpose of his business any other such building or rented land as the case may be; and c) he has not vacated such a building or rented land without sufficient cause after the commencement of this Act, in the urban area concerned; iii) in the case of any building or rented land, if he requires it to carry out any building work at the instance of the Government or local authority or any Improvement Trust under some improvement or dervelopment scheme or if it has become unsafe or unfit for human habitation; iv) in the case of any building, if he requires it for use as an office, or consulting room by his son who tends to start practice as a lawyer or as a "registered practitioner" within the meaning of that expression as used in the Punjab Medical Registration Act, 1961 or for the residence of his son who is married, if - a) his son as aforesaid is not occupying in the urban area concerned any other building for use as office, consulting room or residence, as the case may be; and b) his son as aforesaid has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause after the commencement of this Act, in the urban area concerned;"

(3.)A perusal of the above Section would show that a landlord is within his right to make an application to the Rent Controller for eviction of his tenant in respect of a residential or scheduled building if he requires it for his own occupation subject to fulfilling other conditions. It is further evident from the perusal of Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the Act that in case of non- residential building or rented land such an application can be filed if the non-residential building or rented land is required by the landlord for his own use subject to certain conditions. Similarly, Section 13(3)(a)(iv) of the Act also shows that even in respect of any building as defined in Section 2(a) of the Act the eviction application could be filed by the landlord on the ground that such a building is required to be used as an office or consultation room by the son of the landlord who is a lawyer or registered medical practitioner.