Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.: - There is a shop located in Subhash Mandi, Kurukshetra details of which had given in the impugned judgment of 25.7.2013 of the Appellate Authority whereby ejectment of the petitioner – tenant, interalia, on the ground of personal bonafide necessity of the landlord, had been ordered.

2. Vide rent petition filed under Section 13 of Haryana Urban(Control of Rent & Eviction) Act 1973(hereinafter referred to as the Act) ejectment of the tenant from the shop in dispute had been sought on the following grounds:-

(i) Non-payment of arrears of rent;

(ii) Change of user of the tenanted premises;

(iii) Materially impairment in value of the tenanted premises;

(iv) The premises were unfit for human habitation being in dilapidated condition; and,

(v) Personal bonafide necessity of sons of the landlord and his family members.

3. Tough resistance was made by the tenant. After evaluating oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the parties, the Rent Controller vide its judgment of 21.1.2011 had dismissed the petition of the landlord. In appeal by the landlord where cross-objections had also been preferred by the tenant, the Appellate Authority reversing the findings of the Rent Controller only on the issue of personal bonafide necessity had ruled that the premises were required by the landlord and thus ejectment was ordered while cross-objections of the tenant were rejected.

4. Challenging the impugned order, the petitioner – tenant had assailed the findings of the Appellate Authority on the issue of personal necessity on the following grounds:-

(i) Pleadings regarding bonafide personal necessity were required in compliance with statutory provisions. Findings of the Appellate Authority that omission in this behalf was only procedural irregularity and should not come in the way of the landlord to get his premises vacated if otherwise his need is found to be genuine are wrong; and,

(ii) There is no evidence to prove that the demised premises are required for running the business by the son of the respondent-landlord. Puneet Garg son of the respondentlandlord whose personal necessity has also been claimed by the landlord was not even brought in the witness-box.

5. It is claimed that the finding of the Appellate Authority on the issue of personal necessity is casual and non-clinching and was not sufficient to dislodge the findings recorded by the Rent Controller.

6. Hearing has been provided to counsel for the parties while going through the grounds of Revision Petition and the impugned order.

7. Landlord Jiwan Ram has two sons namely Amit Garg and Puneet Garg. They are grown up and the landlord seeks eviction of the tenanted shop, pleading necessity even of his sons claiming that they have to start business of sale and storage of pesticides. The stand of the petitioner – tenant right from the very beginning is that the landlord along with his both sons is running the business of commission agency in the New Grain Market, Kurukshetra and all of them are well settled, without any necessity of getting the premises vacated.

8. No doubt the expression that landlord requires the premises for “his own use”, is not confind in its meaning to actual physical user by the landlord personally but personal necessity and requirement of user would also in clude the same to be of his sons. It would be construed that the landlord requires the premises “for his own use”.

9. If we go through the pleadings of the landlord, these are highly deficient. In this case, personal necessity of sons of the landlord has been claimed for eviction of the premises. It was thus mandatory for the landlord father especially when such sons are not parties in the litigation to plead and prove that even his sons were not occupying any other such building and had not vacated any such building without sufficient cause after coming into force of the Act.

10. Clearly enough the pleadings in terms of Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the Haryana Urba