The landlord's bonafide requirement for the premises and the need to disclose essential ingredients under Section 13(3)(a) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973.

JUDGMENT :

JAISHREE THAKUR, J.

1. The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to challenge the judgments dated 25.4.2014 and 28.11.2018 passed by the Rent Controller, Kurukshetra and the Appellate Authority respectively, allowing the ejectment petition filed against the respondent.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the respondent/landlord ('the respondent' for short) had rented out a shop to the petitioner/tenant ('the petitioner' for short) situated opposite Gita School near Sunny Sports, Railway Road, Kurukshetra at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month plus house tax. The respondent filed an eviction petition against the petitioner on the grounds of non-payment of rent since 1.1.2005 to date as well as house tax, requiring the shop for the business of his son, who was unemployed and the petitioner had impaired the value and utility of the said shop materially as he had got the electricity connection and meter removed without the consent of the respondent in writing.

3. After notice, the petitioner contested the petition and filed his written statement taking preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action and locus standi etc. He further averred that earlier also the respondent tried to evict the petitioner forcibly, which led to the filing of Civil Suit No.18 of 2005, which was filed by the petitioner seeking decree of perpetual injunction against the respondent from disturbing the enjoyment of the shop and forcible and illegal eviction from the shop in question. The said suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner and the respondent was restrained from dispossessing the petitioner from the shop in question. The petitioner further averred that the rent up to 31.03.2011 has been paid to the respondent and nothing is due towards him. He further took objection that the shop in question was not required by the respondent for his son, who is an advocate and joined legal profession and as such is not unemployed. He prayed that the eviction petition be dismissed with costs.

4. The Rent Controller, after going through the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:-

(1) Whether respondent is liable to be ejected from the property in question on the grounds mentioned in the petition? OPP

(2) Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR

(3) Whether petitioner has no cause of action and locus standi to file and maintain the present petition? OPR

After appreciating the evidence led by the parties, the Rent Controller decided issue No.1 in favour of the respondent. The Rent Controller held that the petitioner has paid the rent up to 31.03.2011 and did not find him to be habitual is not paying rent. He further held that even if the son of the respondent has been enrolled as an Advocate and started practicing in District Kurukshetra, eviction could still be sought, while relying upon a judgment of this Court rendered in Megh Raj v. Deepak Garg and another, 2012 (2) Law Herald (P&H). The Rent Controller allowed the ejectment petition in favour of the respondent on the ground of personal necessity and directed the petitioner to vacate the demised premises within a period of 2 months from the date of passing of the judgment.

5. The petitioner challenged the judgment passed by the Rent Controller by filing an appeal before Appellate Authority.

6. The Appellate Authority, after taking in to consideration the pleadings of the parties and appreciating the evidence led by the parties, modified the order of the Rent Controller on issue No.1 to the effect that premises in question is required by the respondent for personal necessity to start business in the premises in question for his son namely Sourav Sachdeva, who is an MBA and not an Advocate and while upholding the findings of the Rent Controller on issues No.2 and 3, dismissed the appeal vide order dated 28.11.2018.

7. The petitioner challenged the orders of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority in the present civil revision petition.

8.