JudgmentJudgment Surya Kant, J. 1. This revision petition is directed by the petitioner-landlord whose eviction application against the respondent-tenant-Kishan Chand (since deceased and represented by his legal representatives), was allowed by the Rent Controller, Phul vide his order dated 2.2.2007 but on an appeal by the tenant, has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Bathinda, vide its impugned judgment dated 17.10.2007. 2. The facts may be noticed briefly. (A) The petitioner-landlord is a blind person. He filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short `the Act), for ejectment of tenant-respondent No. 1, namely, Kishan Chand, from the shop and Ahata situated in Mandi Phul, District Bathinda, inter-alia, averring that his father-Lok Raj was co-owner of the tenanted premises alongwith his brother late Hari Dass. Lok Raj expired on 7.5.1993 leaving behind his wife Smt. Padma Wati, three sons, namely, Jatinder Kumar, Rajinder Parkash and Varinder Kumar and one daughter Smt. Rekha Rani. As per the oral family settlement between the legal representatives of deceased Lok Raj, the shop and Ahata i.e. the demised premises, has fallen to the share of the petitioner who has become its sole and absolute owner to the extent of share of his deceased father. The premises was rented out to late Lachhman Dass in Sammat 2007, (i.e. in the year 1950) on the first day of Baishaki on an annual rent of Rs. 450/- out of which Rs. 225/- were payable to Lok Raj and Rs. 225/- to Hari Dass. Lachhman Dass died in the year 1939 and thereafter, the demised premises is in possession of his son, namely, respondent No. 1, as a statutory tenant. (B) The petitioner sought eviction of the tenant, inter-alia, on the grounds that : (i) the respondent-tenant is in arrears of rent from first Baishaki 2003; (ii) the premises is required by the petitioner for his own bona fide use and occupation as he is due for retirement from government service on 30th November, 2006 after attaining the age of superannuation and he has two teen- agers sons and is responsible to maintain them, therefore, he wants to start some business after retirement to earn livelihood and maintain the family. (C) The petitioner also impleaded other legal representatives of his deceased father as proforma respondent Nos. (C) The petitioner also impleaded other legal representatives of his deceased father as proforma respondent Nos. 2 to 5 in the eviction petition and all of them admitted the petitioners claim that he has become the sole and exclusive owner of the demised premises as per the family settlement. Respondent No. 1- tenant, however, contested the eviction petition on various grounds, though admitting the factum of tenancy and the rate of rent. The respondent No. 1 controverted the ground of eviction and denied that the demised premises is required by the petitioner-landlord for his personal bona fide use and occupation. The preliminary objections against maintainability of the eviction petition were also taken, especially to the effect that the legal representatives of Hari Dass, who was co-owner of the demised premises alongwith father of the petitioner, were not impleaded party to the eviction proceedings nor they have ever sought the tenants eviction. 3. On the basis of pleadings, the parties went on trial on the following issues :- "1. Whether the respondent No.1 is liable to be evicted from the demised premises on the grounds as alleged in petition ? OPP. 2. Relief." In support of Issue No. 1, the petitioner himself appeared as PW-1 and also examined his brother Rajinder Parkash as PW-2, who stated that he has no objection if the demised shop is got vacated by the petitioner from the tenant. Some formal witnesses were also examined. On behalf of the respondent-tenant, his son Pawan Kumar entered the witness box as RW-1 and reiterated his stand that the petitioner does not require the demised premises for his own use and occupation. 4. The Rent Controller took notice of the fact that the petitioner has lost the eye sight of his both eyes; he is to retire from service on 30.11.2006 on superannuation and that he is required to shoulder the family responsibilities like higher education of his two sons and accordingly held that the requirement of the petitioner for the demised premises to start his own business after retirement to earn the livelihood for his family is bona fide and the tenant was liable to be evicted from the demised premises. 5. 5. Aggrieved, the respondent No. 1-tenant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, Bathinda, and appears to have raised an objection before the Appellate Authority against maintainability of the eviction petition at the instance of a co-owner "for his share without partitioned of the property, as the Rent Act did not provide any partial eviction." The Appellate Authority, after relying upon certain decisions of this Court has held that since the petitioner-landlord is claiming ejectment against half portion of the premises in his capacity as a co-owner, no partial eviction is permissible. On this premise, the Appellate Authority has allowed the appeal; set-aside the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller and has dismissed the eviction petition. 6. I have heard counsel for the parties at some length and perused the records of the courts below which have been summoned. 7. In my considered view, the Appellate Authority while passing the impugned order, has mis-read the pleadings and reached on erroneous conclusion. The petitioner-landlord has sought eviction of the tenant with the following specific prayer made in the eviction petition :- "Petition under Section 13 of `the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 , for ejectment of the respondent No. 1 for from the shop and Hatta situated in Mandi Phul and bounded as under :- East : Hatta of the shop in dispute West : Road South : Shop of Shri Balwinder Singh Rajinder Singh of Phul. North: Shops of Shri Tilak Ram Kapur Chand etc." xx xx xx xx "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that in the interest of justice and in the light of detailed factual and legal submissions made above, the present rent petition, on behalf of the petitioner, may kindly be allowed by way of passing an order of ejectment against respondent No. 1 and he be directed to put the petitioner into the actual, physical, peaceful possession of the shop and Hatta mentioned in the heading of the present petition." (emphasis applied) 8. It is true that while narrating the facts, the petitioner has given complete details as to how the half share of the premises came to the share of his father late Lok Raj and remaining half portion to the brother of his father, namely, late Hari Dass. The petitioner has, however, sought eviction of the respondent No.1 from the entire premises and not from its half portion. The petitioner has, however, sought eviction of the respondent No.1 from the entire premises and not from its half portion. The dispute regarding partition/actual shares, if any, can be within the co- owners of the premises and respondent No.1 as a tenant has no locus-standi either to question the title of his landlord or to plead partition on behalf of any co-owner, who himself has not come forward and raised no objection against the eviction sought by the petitioner. It is not the case of the Appellate Authority also nor the records suggest that any one out of the legal representatives of late Hari Dass ever objected to the eviction of respondent No.1 from the demised premises sought by the petitioner. The plea that the petitioner-landlord wanted the split of tenancy is factually incorrect and not borne out of the prayer made or the record. 9. It is well settled law that when there are more than one owners of a tenanted premises, any one of them can seek eviction of the tenant for and on behalf of everyone. 10. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for respondent No. 1-tenant argued that during the pendency of these proceedings, the daughter-in-law of the tenant has purchased a portion of the demised premises from one of the legal heirs of late Hari Dass, i.e. the co-owner of the petitioner-landlord and the tenant has, thus, improved his status and he having become a joint owner, cannot be evicted from the demised premises. I, however, do not find any merit in this contention for more than one reasons. Firstly, Smt. Anita Rani wife of Pawan Kumar, who is son of the tenant-Kishan Chand, moved an application dated 1.6.2007 before the Appellate Authority for her impleadment as a party to the pending appeal. She averred in that application that she has purchased 7/48th share of the demised premises from Shiv Lal, one of the son of the deceased Hari Dass, vide registered sale deed No. 252 dated 12.3.2007 and has become co-owner in the demised premises. The Appellate Authority dismissed her application vide a self speaking order dated 17.10.2007 which was never challenged by Anita Rani and has attained finality. Secondly, the purchase of a share in the demised premises by Smt. Anita Rani does not improve the status of Kishan Chand-tenant. The Appellate Authority dismissed her application vide a self speaking order dated 17.10.2007 which was never challenged by Anita Rani and has attained finality. Secondly, the purchase of a share in the demised premises by Smt. Anita Rani does not improve the status of Kishan Chand-tenant. Smt. Anita Rani was neither a tenant in the demised premises nor has inherited the tenancy rights after the death of her father-in-law Kishan Chand. The remedy, if any, available with Smt. Anita Rani would be to seek partition of the demised premises as per the law. 11. Suffice it to say that the genuineness of the personal necessity of the petitioner-landlord is not at all in dispute. During the pendency of the proceedings, the sons of the petitioner-landlord are stated to have attained majority and are still unemployed. If the subsequent events were to be noticed, the need of the petitioner-landlord for the demised premises has, rather, increased. He has already retired from service and except pension, has no other source of income. 12. For the reasons aforestated, the revision petition is allowed; the impugned judgment dated 17.10.2007 passed by the Appellate Authority, Bathinda, is set-aside and the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller, Phul, is restored with costs of Rs. 5,000/-. 13. Dasti copy. Petition allowed.