A landlord's plea of personal necessity raises a presumption of its bona fides, and the burden is on the tenant to produce evidence to rebut this presumption.

Rajive Bhalla, J. - Challenge in this revision petition is to an order, dated 16.3.2007, passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Ambala accepting the appeal, filed by respondent No. 1, and setting aside the order, dated 15.10.2004, passed by the learned Rent Controller.

2. Respondent No. 1-landlord filed a petition under section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short herein after referred to as "the Act") praying for the ejectment of the petitioner and respondents No. 2 to 4 from shop No. 701, situated in Ward No. 11, New Grain Market, Naraingarh, District Ambala on the grounds of his bona fide personal necessity and for non-payment of rent.

3. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues :

"1. Whether the respondent is liable to ejectment from the shop in question on the ground that non-payment of rent, personal necessity etc ? OPP

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

3. Relief."

4. Upon a consideration of the evidence, produced by parties, the learned Rent Controller rejected the plea of personal necessity and dismissed the ejectment petition.

5. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order, respondent No. 1 filed an appeal. The learned Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and ordered the ejectment of the petitioner and respondents No. 2 to 4.

6. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that the learned Appellate Authority committed an error of jurisdiction in reversing the well reasoned judgment of the learned Rent Controller. The Rent Controller held that the landlords assertion that he wanted to start his business after retirement, was mala fide and, therefore, could not be accepted, as the landlord owned 10 shops and 12 godowns and during the pendency of the ejectment petition, he had rented out one of these shops. It is further pointed out that as the landlord retired, during the pendency of an appeal from an earlier petition for ejectment, his failure to seek amendment in the appeal or to immediately file an ejectment petition disclosed the lack of a bona fide necessity. The Appellate Authority, on the other hand, disregarded the findings, returned by the learned Rent Controller, and without assigning any reason, cogent or otherwise, reversed these findings. It is further argued that the landlord has failed to establish, by any clear or cogent evidence, that the 10 shops and 12 godowns, owned by him, were insufficient or in-appropriate for him to set up his business. The finding, returned by the Appellate Authority that the tenanted premises were suited to the pleaded necessity, does not find support from the evidence on record. The Appellate Authority erred, while accepting the landlords plea that the other shops and godowns were occupied by tenants. The mere fact that the landlord offered a vacant shop to the petitioner, a circumstance, relied upon by the Appellate Authority, was irrelevant and, therefore, wrongly assigned undue significance by the Appellate Authority. The landlord retired more than an year before filing the petition for ejectment and, therefore, as held by the learned Rent Controller, the requirement asserted by the landlord, lacked an element of necessity and could not have been accepted by the Appellate Authority.

7. Counsel for respondent No. 1, on the other hand, submits that the earlier petition for ejectment was filed, on the grounds of non-payment of rent and material impairment, while respondent No. 1 was in service. While in service, the landlord could not urge a plea of necessity. The landlord retired during the pendency of the appeal, and instead of praying for an amendment, in the pending appeal, filed a fresh ejectment petition on the plea that he requires the tenanted premises. It is asserted that the landlordss sons are occupying adjoining shops and he works with them. The other shops and godowns are occupied by tenants and , therefore cannot be used by the landlor