The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's acceptance of the landlords' plea for ejectment based on bona fide personal necessity and the satisfaction of statutory requirements.

Rajive Bhalla, J.

1. The petitioner-tenant impugns an order, dated 11.2.2006, passed by the learned Rent Controller, Ambala City directing his ejectment, as also an order, dated 4.4.2007, passed by the learned Appellate Authority/Additional District Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Ambala, affirming the aforementioned order.

2. The respondents/landlords filed a petition, under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 for the petitioner-tenants ejectment from shop No. 377, B-4 Dev Samaj Road, Ambala City on the grounds of non payment of rent w.e.f. 1.4.2001 and the bona fide personal need of respondent No. 1-Dr. Raj Kumar Gupta. It was asserted in the petition for ejectment that the Haryana Urban Development Authority has served notices, under Section 17 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 , calling upon respondent No. 1 to close his clinic in House No. 792, Sector 7, Urban Estate Ambala City, as commercial activity is not permitted in residential premises. Respondent No. 1 is, therefore, required to shut down his clinic or face resumption of his house and it was, therefore, prayed that as respondent No. 1 requires the shop for his bona fide need to shift his medical practice, the tenant be evicted from the tenanted premises.

3. The respondent-tenant contested the correctness of the averments in the ejectment petition and asserted that respondent No. 2 resides at Ludhiana, whereas respondent No. 1 carries on his medical practice at his house No. 792, Sector 7, Urban Estate Ambala City. It was further asserted that as the landlords have sold two adjoining shops and are in occupation of a building, within the urban area of Ambala, the need pleaded is not bona fide. It was also asserted that the landlords increased the rent on 27.3.2001, whereas the ejectment petition was filed on 14.6.2001, thus, establishing the mala fides of the plea of bona fide necessity.

4. On the basis of pleadings, the learned Rent Controller framed the following is-sues:

1. Whether the petitioners required the tenanted premises for their use and occupation? OPP

2. Whether the present petition is barred as per the provision of Order 2, Rule 2, CPC? OPR

3. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR

4. Whether the present petition is not maintainable? OPR

5. Relief.

5. After parties concluded their evidence and addressed arguments, the learned Rent Controller directed the petitioners ejectment by accepting the landlords plea that they require the demised premises for their bona fide personal necessity.

6. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order, the petitioner filed an appeal. The learned Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order, passed by the learned Rent Controller.

7. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the orders, passed by the learned Courts below, are illegal and void. The landlords have sold two adjoining shops, thus, clearly establishing that the need pleaded in the ejectment petition is not bona fide. It is submitted that on 27.3.2001 i.e. three months before the filing of the ejectment petition, the landlords increased the rent. This fact is in itself sufficient to cast a serious doubt upon the bona fides of the personal necessity pleaded and to dismiss the ejectment petition.

8. It is further submitted that the notice of misuser was received in the year 1999, whereas the ejectment petition was filed on 14.6.2001. The delay in filing the ejectment petition establishes that the assertion of bona fide necessity, based upon the notices issued by the HUDA, is a mere ruse to seek the petitioners ejectment. During this period, the landlords enhanced the rent on 27.3.2001, clearly establishing the mala fides of their plea of bona fide necessity. It is further submitted that were the threat of resumption real, respondent No. 1 would have shifted his clinic elsewhere. It is also submitted that respondent No. 1 was running his clinic in the adjoining sho