The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for landlords to plead and prove specific facts, including bona fide personal necessity and the rate of rent, in ejectment applications.

M.K.Kumar, J.

1. This petition filed under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for brevity the Act challenges order dated 18.2.1993, passed by the Appellate Authority, Ambala, dismissing the appeal of the landlord-petitioner in which the order dated 7.1.1991 passed by the Rent Controller was impugned. The Rent Controller in his order dated 7.1,1991 had dismissed the application of the landlord-petitioner in which his prayer for ejectment of the tenant-respondent on the ground of non-payment of rent and also on the ground of personal necessity was negatived.

2. The facts necessary for deciding the legal controversy raised in the present petition are that the landlord-petitioner filed Rent Application No. 6-R/16.4.1988 instituted on 3.1.1983 for ejectment of the tenant-respondent from the demised premises by alleging that he had not paid rent since 1.7.1979. However, rent for the period from 1.11.1979 to 31.10.1982 only amounting to Rs. 2880/- including interest and cost was claimed. It was further alleged that the rate of rent per month was Rs. 80/-. It was further alleged that the demised premises were required by the landlord-petitioner for his own use and occupation as his son was of marriageable age who did not have any residence for his use. The landlord-petitioner further asserted that he had not vacated any other premises without sufficient cause nor he has any accommodation available for his own use and occupation, He further averred that the premises available with the landlord-petitioner was not sufficient and he urgently required the demised premises alongwith another portion of the house for which a separate ejectment application had been filed.

3. The tenant-respondent took the stand that the demised premises was rented out to him by the mother of the landlord-petitioner long ago at a monthly rent of Rs. 25/- per month which was later on enhanced to Rs. 35/- per month exclusive of water and other charges. It was denied that the rate of rent was fixed at Rs. 80/- per month. It was alleged that the rent use to be collected by the mother of the landlord-petitioner or his son Paramjit Singh from time to time. It was further claimed that the tenant-respondent had paid rent upto July, 1982 which has been collected by his mother and son. For the month of July 1982, the son of the landlord-petitioner collected rent at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month and he had also issued a receipt. It was further claimed that he had sent Rs. 75/- representing the rent for a period of two months i.e. August and September, 1982 through money order to the son of the landlord-petitioner who refused to accept the money order as is recorded in the endorsement by the postal official. It was further claimed that the landlord-petitioner has a residential house in Model Town Ambala City in his own name which was rented out to some other tenant but this fact has intentionally been concealed in order to raise the plea of personal necessity. It is refuted that the demised premises is required by the landlord-petitioner for his own personal use. The Rent Controller framed three issues which read as under;-

"1. Whether the respondent is liable to be evicted from the premises in question on the grounds alleged? OPP

2. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form as alleged? OPR

3. Relief."

4. On issue No. 1, the Rent Controller took up both the grounds for decision. He recorded the finding that the landlord-petitioner miserably failed to prove the rate of rent. He further pointed out that different rates of rent have been given in the ejectment application where he has claimed Rs. 80/- per month as rent and in his replication, the rate of rent mentioned is Rs. 90/-.When he appeared as PW1, he did not depose about the rate of rent. The plea of the tenant-respondent was taken to be proved that the rate of rent as settled between the landlord-petitioner and the tenant-respondent was Rs. 35/- pe