Judgment

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. :- This appeal by special leave is from the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court dated 10th January, 1980. The appellant is the tenant. The appeal arises out of the summary dismissal of the revision petition filed by the tenant under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure from the decision of the appellant authority under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 being Act No. 11 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. The appellant took on rent the premises in question from the previous landlord in or about July, 1962. On or about 11th October, 1971, the respondent purchased the premises in question being suite No. 292 of Ward No. 13, District Gurgaon from the previous landlord. The premises hereinafter will be referred as the premises.

3. Few months prior thereto that is to say on 10th July, 1971, the respondent had purchased another house near Kabir Bhavan, Gurgaon. The appellants case was that the respondent got vacant possession of the same. The respondent, however, denied that assertion. On 7th August, 1972 the respondent sold the said house near Kabir Bhavan. It is asserted that the sale was to one Resham Devi who is alleged to be the sister-in-law of the respondent. On the other hand this is disputed and it appears that she is the sister-in-law of the brother of the respondent. The assertion of the appellant was that this was a benami transaction. On 14th January, 1974, an application for ejectment was filed before the Rent Controller by the respondent on grounds of (a) non-payment of rent, (b) subletting, and (c) bona fide requirement. So far as the grounds of non-payment of rent and subletting, are concerned, it has been held by all the Courts in favour of the tenant. Those findings are not in dispute in this appeal. The only ground that survives is the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The Rent Controller on 7th November, 1978 rejected the petitioner of the landlord on the ground that the landlord had not been able to prove all the ingredients of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act. The respondent thereafter filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. Before the Authority, an application was made for admission of additional evidence by the respondent/landlord. Such additional evidence was permitted to be adduced and was recorded on various dates. The appeal was allowed by the appellate authority on 7th December, 1979. The appellant herein filed a revision petition as mentioned hereinbefore before the High Court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the same was dismissed by the High Court in limine on 10th January, 1980.

4. The only question that requires consideration in this appeal, is whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the landlord came within the provisions of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act. The Act which is an Act to control the increase of rent of certain buildings and rented land situated within the limits of urban areas, and the eviction of tenants therefrom, provides by Section 13(l) that a tenant in possession of a building or a rented land shall not be evicted therefrom except in accordance with the provisions of the said section. Sub-section (3)(a)(i) of Section 13 provides as follows :

"(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-

(a) in the case of a residential building, if,-

(i) he requires it for his own occupation, is not occupying another residential building in the urban area concerned and has not vacated such building without sufficient cause after the commencement of the 1949 Act in the said urban area."

5. Before we deal with the other contentions, it may be mentioned that on behalf of the appellant, Shri P.K. Banerji learned advocate contended that the appellate authority was in error in firstly admitting additional evidence at the appellate stage in the facts and circumstances of the case, and secondly, the appellate aut