Mr. Jaswant Singh, J. (Oral):- The petitioner/tenant was inducted as a tenant by the respondent owner-cum-landlord in the demised premises comprising residential house bearing No.606, Sector 14, Urban Estate-Gurgoan, vide lease deed dated 22.11.2004 at the rent of Rs. 9,000/- per month. The lease deed initially was for a period of 7 months which was subsequently extended from time to time.

2. Subsequently, in June 2006, the ejectment petition filed by the respondent-landlord seeking eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the demised premises was filed on the grounds of non-payment of rent since November 2005, personal necessity and change of user. It was stated that the landlord, who was residing along with his wife at Delhi, after his retirement wanted to shift to his bigger house at Gurgoan i.e. demised premises. It was also stated that the demised premises was for residential purpose wherein in some portion, the tenant was concededly operating business of import and export. The tenant contested the eviction application however, admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant, and the learned Rent Controller, Gurgoan vide order dated 29.08.2006 passed order of provisional assessment of rent @ Rs. 9,000/- per month payable for the 7 months with effect from November 2005 along with interest as Rs. 1680/- and costs amounting to Rs. 1500/- total amounting to Rs. 66,180/- to be paid by 13.09.2006. The tenant submitted a cheque of the aforesaid amount on the stipulated date of hearing, however, the cheque got dishonored and the landlord moved an application seeking the striking off the defence of the tenant. In view of the non-payment of arrears of provisional rent, the application was allowed and the defence was struck off vide order dated 06.02.2007 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Gurgoan and the same was upheld in the civil revision No. 1489 of 2007 filed by the tenant before this Court vide order dated 17.10.2008. The SLP filed against the said order was also dismissed.

3. Thereafter, the landlord led his evidence with due opportunity for cross-examination by the tenant and on the basis of evidence on record, the learned Rent Controller, vide order dated 14.06.2011, allowed the ejectment application of the tenant on all the three aforesaid grounds taken in the eviction application and ordered the tenant to hand over the possession within one month. The tenant filed appeal and the same was also dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority vide judgment dated 21.02.2012, and upheld the findings returned by the Learned Rent Controller, Gurgoan.

4. Hence the present revision.

5. Learned counsel for the tenant has argued that as per the provision of Section 13(3) Clause (a) and Sub-Clause (i) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act ( For short the Act) the landlord had taken the plea that he requires the demised premises for his own occupation and is not occupying any other residential building in the urban area concerned and thus the ingredients of Section 13 Sub-Section (3) Clause (a) (i) of the Act cannot be held to be proved entitling the respondent-landlord to seek eviction, more so, in view of the specific objection taken to that effect in the written statement filed by the tenant. In support, he cites Gurbaj Singh Vs. Parshotam Singh and others 2011 (2) R.C.R (Rent) 349, [2011(5) Law Herald (P&H) 751] : & M/s Bhatia Cloth House Vs. Dr. Raj Kumar Gupta and another 2008 (4) R.C.R (Civil) 250.

6. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent/landlord has argued that the objection taken in the written statement cannot be referred to, in view of the defence being struck off. He further submits that although the aforesaid ingredients of Section 13 (3) (a) (i) were specifically pleaded. However, they were made good in the evidence of the landlord, wherein in his cross-examination he specifically said that he did not own any property in the urban area of Gurgoan. The other property to be owned