IMPORTANT POINT
Eviction--Mere fact that landlord rented out one room in disputed house during pendency of case would not disentitle him from seeking eviction of tenant on ground of personal necessity.

Ashutosh Mohunta, J.

1. The petitioners-tenants have filed this revision against the judgment dated 7.3.2001 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the `Haryana Rent Control Act) vide which the appeal filed by the landlord for eviction of the tenant has been accepted and the petitioners have been directed to handover vacant possession of the demised premises to the landlord within a period of two months.

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the respondents-landlord filed a petition for ejectment from House No. 493, Bakra Market, Sadar Bazar, Karnal, against Girdhari Lal (now deceased) represented by his legal representatives under Section 13 of the Haryana Rent Control Act. The ejectment was sought on the following grounds :-

i) That the respondent has not paid the rent for the last three years i.e. from 1.2.90 to 31.3.93 @ 150/- per month total of which comes out to be Rs. 5400/-.

ii) That the premises are required for his personal use & occupation as he is residing in house No.537 comprising of just two rooms in which members of more than 10 of the family are residing.

iii) That the premises are in dilapidated conditions.

iv) That the respondent is quarrelsome in nature.

3. It was averred by the landlord that he has a large family comprising of 16 members i.e. 4 sons and a daughter. It was further averred by the landlord that his elder son Chhote Lal is married having 4 children; that his second son Om Parkash is also married and has four children; that his third son Vijay Kumar is unmarried and his daughter Usha and his fourth son is also unmarried. It was further pleaded that all the members are residing in House No. 537 situated in Roop Nagar, Karnal, and the accommodation with him is insufficient for his personal needs. It was lastly pleaded by the landlord that he wants to arrange the marriage of his younger sons but on account of insufficiency of accommodation he has not been able to arrange for their marriages. It was also averred that he is also the owner of the house in dispute bearing No. 493, Bakra Market, Sadar Bazar, Karnal, which consists of two rooms and the same was rented out to Girdhari Lal on a monthly rent of Rs.150/- and that the tenant be ordered to be evicted and be directed to vacate the said premises as the landlord requires the same for his personal bona fide needs.

4. The averments made by the landlord were denied by the tenant who submitted that during the pendency of the rent petition the landlord has let out one room in the disputed premises to one Babu Ram which shows that the landlord does not have any personal necessity.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues :-

(1) Whether respondent is liable to be ejected from the demised premises, as alleged ? OPP

(2) Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR

(3) Whether the petitioner is estopped from filing the present petition by his own act and conduct ? OPR

(4) Whether the petitioner is barred by principle of res-judicata and estoppel ? OPR

(5) Relief.

6. After recording the evidence of the parties and hearing the learned counsel, the Rent Controller decided issue No.1 against the landlord while issue Nos. 2 to 4 were decided in favour of the landlord and against the tenant and consequently the rent petition was dismissed vide order dated 25.5.1998 by the Rent Controller. It was held by the trial Court that the landlord does not have a bona fide requirement of the demised premises for his personal use and occupation.

7. The aforementioned judgment of the Rent Controller, Karnal, was challenged by the landlord by filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority who accepted the appeal vide his judgment dated 7.3.2001 and held that as the landlord has a large family of 16 persons to house and support and that the present premises of the landlord which comprises only of two rooms was insufficient for his personal