JUDGMENT

FAIZAN UDDIN, J.- Leave granted.

2. This appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India has been directed against the judgment dated 19-2-1991, passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Revision No, 1076 of 1987 reversing the judgment and order of eviction passed against the tenant-respondent herein by the Rent Controlling Authority, Karnal in Rent Case No. 41/2 of 1984 (21/2 of 1982) and affirmed by the Appellate Authority, Karnal in Rent Appeal No. 1 of 1986 decided on 11-3-1987.

3. The present appellant brought the suit seeking the eviction of his tenant, the respondent herein, from House No. 372, situated in Ward No. 7, Sadar Bazar, Karnal consisting of two rooms, one varandah and kitchen and an open courtyard on the grounds set out hereunder:

I. THAT the respondent was a defaulter in respect of payment of arrears of rent from 1-8-1979 to 31-7-1982 at the rate of Rs 20 per month amounting to Rs 720 and House Tax to Rs 90;

II. THAT the respondent had started tethering cattle and putting dung cakes on walls of demised premises diminishing its value and utility;

III. THAT the respondent had ceased to occupy the tenanted premises for more than a year without reasonable cause and;

IV. THAT the respondent-tenant has shifted his residence to his own residential House No. 351/7, Sadar Bazar, Karnal having purchased it in the name of his wife which is reasonably sufficient for himself and his family members.

It may be pointed out here that the aforementioned grounds of eviction fall under Sections 13(2)(i), 13(2)(iii), 13(2)(v) and 13(3)(a)(iv) respectively of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

4. The respondent-tenant contested the said eviction proceedings by controverting the material averments made by the appellant-landlord. The respondent, inter alia, pleaded that the appellant was not the only owner and landlord of the suit premises and, therefore, he was not competent to file the suit for his eviction. He pleaded that the arrears of rent were duly tendered by him. He also pleaded that the house purchased by his wife consists of two small rooms and that since he has strained relations with his wife, she was living separate from him. He further pleaded that he and his married son and his children and the wife of his son are living in the house in dispute and on these pleadings he made a prayer for the dismissal of the eviction suit.

5. The Rent Controller after framing the necessary issues and recording the parties evidence came to the conclusion that the appellant alone was competent to initiate eviction proceedings and since the tenant-respondent has paid the arrears of rent, house tax and interest on 18-1-1983, therefore, the ground of eviction under Section 13(2)(i) of the Act became nonexistent. As regards the second ground, the Rent Controller found that there was no cogent and reliable evidence to prove that the respondent had committed any act diminishing the value or the utility of the suit premises. As regard the third and fourth grounds mentioned above, the Rent Controller on a minute and detailed discussion of the parties evidence on record, took the view that the respondent-tenant had ceased to occupy the demised premises for a continuous period of more than four months without any reasonable cause and had in fact shifted his residence with his wife and children in September 1981 in House No. 351, Ward No. 7, Sadar Bazar, Karnal which he had purchased in the name of his wife and the same is reasonably sufficient for his requirements. The Rent Controller, therefore, passed an order of eviction of the respondent from the suit premises on the ground contained in Sections 13(2)(v) and 13(3)(a)(iv) of the Act. The respondent-tenant challenged the said finding in appeal under Section 15(2) of the Act before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority re-examined the entire evidence and the mate