The petitioner3tenant has challenged the aforesaid judgment dated 21.10.2011 on the ground that in the ejectment petition, the respondent3landlord has nowhere pleaded that the demised shop is needed for settling his two sons who are earning their livelihood by ironing the clothes on a cart, as stated by him in the examination in3 chief. It is further case of the petitioner that in the cross3examination of Dharam Pal son of Piara Lal, he has admitted that another shop was lying vacant prior to the filing of eviction petition; however, the aforesaid fact has not been mentioned in the eviction petition and thus, the landlord has concealed material facts from the knowledge of the Court, which has disentitled him to the relief claimed. Moreover, the landlord has failed to plead necessary ingredients for eviction of the ground of personal necessity. It is further case of the petitioner that in view of the aforesaid facts, the need of the landlord cannot be held to be genuine, real and honest; and thus, the instant revision petition be accepted and the impugned judgment of the Appellate Authority be set aside while dismissing the eviction petition of the respondent3landlord.
