JUDGMENT
Satish Kumar Mittal, J.
1. The petitioner-tenant has filed this revision petition under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) challenging the orders of his ejectment, dated 10.6.2004 and 23.11.2005 passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, whereby he has been ordered to be ejected from the demised premises, which is a shop, while holding that the demised premises is required by the respondent-landlady for her bona fide necessity to settle the business of her son.
2. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the aforesaid finding is contrary to the evidence available on record. He contends that in fact, the demised shop is not required at all by the respondent as her son is already running a Muniari Shop at village Tuto Mazara, as stated by RW1 Randhir Singh, RW2 Sada Ram and RW3 Nirmal Singh. Secondly, he submits that during the pendency of the ejectment application, out of three shops owned by the respondent-landlady, which are in occupation of other tenants, one shop has been vacated by one of the tenants, which has been subsequently rented out to some other tenant. Therefore, in view of this fact, the personal requirement of the respondent-landlady cannot be said to be bona fide.
3. After hearing counsel for the petitioner and going through the impugned orders, I do not find any substance in either of the submissions made by counsel. It has come on record that son of the respondent landlady had purchased a flour mill, but he could not succeed in the said business and he had sold the said flour mill in the year 1998 before institution of the instant ejectment application. Thereafter, he was unemployed. His registration with the Employment Exchange has also been proved by the respondent-landlady as Ex.P3. It is true that before the Rent Controller, the petitioner has tried to prove that son of the respondent-landlady was running a Muniari Shop at village Tuto Mazara for the last two years, but the said fact has been ignored by the Courts below on the ground that running a Muniari Shop in a village does not eclipse the, requirement of the petitioner because the demised shop is in an urban area and in these days, every one wants to settle his business in an urban area as in the rural area, scope of business is very less. It has been held by the Courts below that it will be more beneficial for the respondent-landlady to settle her son at Mahilpur in her own shop, which is more suitable than the shop situated at village Tuto Mazara. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the said reasoning given by the Courts below.
4. As far as the second contention raised for the first time before the Appellate Authority is concerned, it has been categorically held by the Appellate Authority that no tenant has vacated any premises. Actually, out of three tenants, one tenant died during the pendency of the instant ejectment application and after his death, his shops have become statutory tenants. The contention of petitioner is that since the respondent-landlady is receiving rent from sons of the deceased tenant, therefore, it is deemed that the said shop was vacated and rented out to other tenant. I do not find any substance in this contention, because tenancy of the non-residential building is also heritable and if the son has inherited the tenancy, it cannot be said that any fresh tenancy has been created after the earlier tenancy. Thus, there is not merit in the instant revision petition.