Mahesh Grover, J. - (1.)THE petitioner is the landlord who sought the eviction of the respondent -tenant on the ground of personal necessity. The demised premises is a shop and it was pleaded by the petitioner that he requires the same for his use and he intended to start a business therefrom. The respondent -tenant denied the need as expressed by the petitioner and stated that the petitioner and his brother Raj Kumar were owners in equal share and after death of Raj Kumar, his legal representatives were essential parties. It was pleaded that petitioner is joint owner of the demised premises. Tenancy, however, is admitted but it was clarified that after the death of Raj Kumar the rent note had been executed by the respondent in favour of the sons of Raj Kumar to whom the rent had been paid.
(2.)THESE facts pertaining to the brother of the petitioner and his death are however inconsequential considering the fact that there is no dispute about the tenancy and the petitioner being landlord. Learned Rent Controller accepted the plea whereas Appellate Court reversed the findings. The reason for doing so was the perception of the Appellate Authority that since in the petition the personal need expressed was for himself without any mention of the son, subsequently in the proceedings and in his testimony the mentioning of the need for the son as well, was construed to be beyond the pleadings and hence discarded.
There is no representation on behalf of the respondent. The Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and has perused the material on record.

(3.)THE claim stated in the rent petition would indicate that the petitioner had expressed the need to set up his own business in the demised premises but in the testimony it was stated that he required premises for himself as also for his son. The appellate Court misconstrued these words to mean that the need for the son has not been expressed in the petition and thus, the evidence led subsequently could not be looked into.