The court emphasized the importance of bona fide necessity for ejectment and clarified that partial eviction was not permissible under the Act.

Tenant Ram Dass Bagga has filed this revision petition under Section 15 (6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (in short – the Act), having failed before both the Authorities below.

2. Respondent-landlord Ram Chander filed ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Act against tenant-petitioner seeking ejectment of the petitioner from demised shops no.2 and 3, on the ground of nonpayment of arrears of rent and bona fide requirement of the demised property for the landlord for his own business. Ground of non-payment of rent was not pressed in view of payment made by the tenant. As regards personal necessity, it was pleaded that the landlord has retired from service in Saraswati Sugar Mills and was doing no work, and therefore, he wanted to start his independent business in the demised shops.

3. The tenant controverted the ground of personal necessity of the landlord. It was also alleged that the disputed shops were let out by Kamlesh Kumari wife of the landlord and later on, both of them started receiving rent from the tenant-petitioner. It was also alleged that Kamlesh Kumari filed ejectment petition regarding adjacent shop no.1 in the same building against Natha Ram – tenant thereof, on the ground of necessity of the said shop for son of the landlady. The said ejectment petition was allowed by Rent Controller, but was dismissed in appeal by the Appellate Authority and revision petition against the same is pending in this Court. It was pleaded that the landlady suffered consent decree qua the demised shops in favour of her husband i.e. landlord-respondent herein just to make out a ground for eviction. Plea of the respondent-landlord regarding necessity of the demised shop was also denied.

4. Learned Rent Controller, Jagadhri, vide judgment dated 17.03.2010, allowed the ejectment petition. Appeal preferred against the said judgment by tenant-petitioner has been dismissed by Appellate Authority, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, vide judgment dated 25.05.2011. Feeling aggrieved, tenant has filed this revision petition.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

6. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that there is another shop no.4 in the same building, which is lying vacant and is owned by wife of the landlord, and therefore, landlord can use the said shop because husband and wife have natural dependence upon each other, as observed by this Court in the case of Sunita Rani vs. Ramesh Chander reported as (2008-4) The Punjab Law Reporter 143. It was also contended that wife of landlord has suffered consent decree in favour of landlord just to seek eviction of the tenant-petitioner, and therefore, petitioner has right to challenge the said decree. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Rajinder Kumar Khanna and others vs. R. K. Bajaj and others reported as 1993 (1) Rent Law Reporter 306. It was also argued that mere wish of the landlord is not sufficient to order ejectment and there has to be element of necessity, which is much higher than mere desire. Reliance in this regard was placed on observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shiv Sarup Gupta vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta reported as 1999 (2) Rent Control Reporter 141. It was also submitted that even partial eviction of the petitioner from one of the two demised shops can be ordered to satisfy the requirement of the landlord. Reliance in this regard has been placed on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar vs. Yusuf Ali reported as 2010 (3) Civil Court Cases 0001. It was also submitted that landlord has three shops in Anand Market, Jagadhri, which can be used by him for his own necessity.

7. On the other hand, counsel for respondent-landlord contended that alleged shop no.4, said to be vacant, is not shop, but is a room of residential part of the building and is located in side street, whereas the demised shops are lo