The landlord's bonafide requirement for the premises, as per Section 13(3) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, is to be judged from the viewpoint of the landlord, and the landlord is the best judge of his own requirement.

1. By filing this revision petition, the tenant has challenged the order dated 2.9.2011 of the Rent Controller, Narnaul ordering his eviction from the demised premises and the order dated 30.3.2013 of the Appellate Authority, Narnaul, dismissing his appeal against the aforesaid order of the Rent Controller. The respondent-landlady filed the present petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction), Act, 1973 (for short the 'Act') for ejectment of the petitioner from the tenanted premises (i.e. shop and go-down) situated in Mandi Narnaul. In the petition, it was pleaded that the demised premises were rented out to the petitioner on a monthly rent of ` 225/- w.e.f. 1.9.1993 on the basis of a written rent note dated 18.9.1983. Subsequently, the rent was increased to ` 3750/- per annum. After the death of the original landlord, namely, Devi Dayal, his wife Sumitra i.e. respondent became the landlady of the demised premises.

2. It was further pleaded that the petitioner was in arrears of rent since 1.4.2008 and has failed to pay house tax and fire tax and thus, was liable to be ejected from the demised premises on the ground of nonpayment of arrears of rent. The respondent-landlady further pleaded that the petitioner has changed the user of the premises by converting the shop into a godown and the premises had been lying closed for the last more than a year which had diminished its value and utility.

3. The respondent-landlady further pleaded that the demised premises are required by her for opening a business for her sons, namely, Mahesh Kumar and Manish Kumar who have no shop available with them to do business. Her son Mahesh Kumar was earning his livelihood by supplying goods in the area of village Hudian and Bhakri etc. and he needs the demised premises for opening a business for himself. She has no other shop available with her to open a business for her sons. It was further pleaded that she had not vacated any such shop after the commencement of the Act in the urban area of Narnaul. Initially the petitioner had agreed to vacate the demised premises after his son got a job. However, he had refused to vacate the shop as agreed by him. The petitioner has not acceded to her request for handing over the vacant possession of the demised premises. Hence, the petition for ejectment.

4. Upon notice, the petitioner filed reply pleading therein that the agreed rent stands tendered by him on 25.11.2009. He was not liable to pay house tax and nothing remains to be paid to the respondent-landlady towards the rent of the demised premises. He further denied that the demised premises were lying locked for the last more than one year or that the same was being used by him as a godown. It was further denied that the value and utility of the demised premises has been decreased in any manner.

5. The petitioner further pleaded that both sons of the respondent are well settled and the respondent wants to get the premises vacated with mala fide intentions so as to re-let or sell the same. She does not require the demised premises for her own use or for use by her sons. Other averments were denied and dismissal of the petition was prayed for.

6. The respondent-landlord filed rejoinder to the written statement controverting the averments made therein and reiterated those made by her in the eviction petition.

7. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 15.2.2010.

1. Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected from the shop in question on the grounds as alleged in the petition? OPP

2. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR

3. Whether the petitioner has no cause of action to file the present petition? OPR

4. Whether the present petition is time barred? OPR

5. Whether the present petition is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of the necessary party? OPR

6. Whether the petitioner has not come in the Court with clean hands and concealed true and material facts from the Court? OPR

7. Relief

8.