The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of pleading and proving the essential requirements under Section 13(3)(a)(i)(b) & (c) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 for eviction on the grounds of personal necessity.

Vinod K.Sharma, J.

1. This is tenants revision petition against the order dated 28.4.2007, passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Sirsa, allowing a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

2. The respondent/landlord filed a petition against the petitioner and respondents No. 2 to 6 being the tenant by inheritance from late Sh. Suraj Bhan and Mahabir Parshad. Sh. Suraj Bhan and Mahabir Parshad, tenants were said to be in possession of the ground floor of shop shown in the heading of the petition, whereas the respondent was landlord, who was in possession of the first floor. The rate of rent of the tenanted premises was Rs. 1615/- (Rupees one thousand six hundred and fifteen only) per annum.

3. The case of the landlord was, that the tenants had not paid the rent since 11.6.1996, therefore, were liable to be evicted for non-payment of rent.

4. The second ground of eviction pleaded was, that the shop in question was required by the landlord/respondent for business of his son Sanjeev Kumar, who had already passed his matriculation examination.

5. The case set up by the landlord was, that he has no other shop, except the shop in question, for business of his younger son Sanjeev Kumar.

6. The third ground, on which the eviction sought, was that the shop was unfit and unsafe for human habitation, as its structure was old one, and it could collapse at any time having outlived its age. The ceiling of the shop was made of wooden batons which had many bends, besides there being cracks in the walls.

7. The ground of impairing the value and utility of the shop by misuse was also taken.

8. The petition was contested by the tenants by filing joint written statement, wherein factum of tenancy was admitted.

9. The stand taken by tenants was, that the petitioner, Shankar Lal alone was doing business in the capacity of tenant in the shop in question. It was also denied, that the tenancy of the tenants was only on the ground floor portion rather, it was pleaded, that roof was also part of the tenancy, and was in possession of the tenants. It was the stand of the tenants, that respondent No.6 Hari Krishan son of Mahabir Parshad never occupied the shop, in any capacity, and was doing his business separately. The tenant tendered the rent upto 10.1.2000, along with interest and costs, which was accepted by the landlord. The tenants denied, that the shop in question was required by the landlord for his personal necessity, as his son Sanjeev Kumar had other suitable premises to start business.

10. It was further the case of the tenants, that both the sons of the landlord were doing optical business in the premises owned by them, therefore, the requirement of the landlord was not genuine or need based. A specific plea was taken, that the petition lacked necessary particulars, as required under Section 13 of the Act.

11. The plea of building being unfit and unsafe was also denied, and it was also denied, that the tenant had impaired the value and utility of the building. In view of the stand taken in the written statement, it was asserted, that the petition deserved to be dismissed with costs.

12. Respondent No.6-Hari Krishan despite service did not appear and was proceeded ex parte.

13. In the replication, the stand taken in the petition was reiterated, and the averments made in the written statement were denied.

14. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller, framed the following issues :-

"1. Whether the respondent is liable to be evicted under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction ) Act, 1973 from the ground floor shop bearing House Tax No. 5/586 (old No. 8550 as mentioned in the petition ? OPP

2. Whether the petitioner has no cause of action to file the present petition ?OPR

3. Relief."

15. The landlord in support of his case examined Sh. O.P. Madaan as AW-1, Sanjeev Kumar as AW-2, Ram Kishan Goyal as AW-3 (Genera