As per case facts, landlords sought eviction of their tenant from residential premises due to bonafide need. The tenant contested, alleging landlords possessed other properties not disclosed, violating the East ... Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. Lower courts granted eviction based on bonafide need. The tenant appealed to the High Court, asserting that landlords admitted to other properties, which should have precluded eviction under Section 13(3) of the Act. The question arose whether lower courts erred by allowing eviction despite these claims and the statutory requirements. Finally, the High Court held that the landlords' pleadings met the statutory parameters. It noted that other vacant shops were part of the same building, reinforcing the bonafide need, and the other residential property was occupied with parents, not for personal use. The High Court, respecting its limited revisional jurisdiction, found no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact by the lower authorities.