The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of the landlady's testimony and the condition of the premises in determining the grounds for ejectment under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973.

JUDGMENT

Lisa Gill, J. - This matter is being taken up for hearing through video conferencing due to outbreak of the pandemic, COVID-19.

2. Petitioner-tenant has filed this revision petition being aggrieved of his ejectment, ordered by the learned Rent Controller, Narnaul vide order dated 19.05.2016 which stands upheld by the learned Appellate Authority, Narnaul vide order dated 09.01.2020.

3. Respondent No.1-Savitri Jain widow of Ramesh Chand Jain preferred a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short, the 'Act') seeking ejectment of the petitioner from the shop in question as described in the petition, on the ground of non-payment of rent, subletting, bonafide personal necessity and the premises being unfit and unsafe for human habitation and business. It is pleaded that the shop in question was taken on rent in the year 1963 by the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioner from the initial owner, Smt. Ram Bai on a rent of Rs.50/- per month. Rent note was also executed on 04.05.1984 with the term of tenancy being twelve months. Details of how respondent No.1 became the absolute owner and landlady of the property in question were described. Same are not detailed in this order as no dispute has been raised regarding relationship of landlady and tenant by the present petitioner. Petition was resisted by the petitioner-tenant as well as respondent No.2, his son. Joint written statement was filed by them and averments in the petition regarding the grounds for ejectment were denied.

4. Learned Rent Controller allowed the petition on the ground of personal bonafide necessity of the landlady, inasmuch as premises were held to be required for use and occupation by landlady's widow daughter-in-law, another son and daughter-in-law. It was held that present petitioner had sublet the premises to his son as it came on record that the petitioner had purchased a three-storey building and business was being carried on in the tenanted premises by the petitioner's son. Learned Rent Controller further held that the tenanted shop had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation on the basis of evidence led by the landlady including the photographs of the disputed property. Ejectment of the petitioner was hence ordered. Appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority, Narnaul.

5. Aggrieved therefrom, present petition has been filed by the petitioner-tenant.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that rent in question has been regularly paid and as it is the petitioner's own son who is running the business in the demised premises, it cannot be said that premises have been sublet. The petitioner himself, it is submitted, has become unwell and physically disabled, therefore, the petitioner's son was running the business in the disputed premises. Thus, it cannot be said that the premises stood sublet. Furthermore, question of personal bonafide necessity of the landlady did not arise. It is submitted that the landlady's daughters-in-law and son did not even testify before the learned Rent Controller to prove the necessity. It is further submitted that one of the daughter-in-law and son of the landlady wish to carry on their profession as an Advocate and use the premises for consultation and library, which is highly improbable as there is no question of a lawyer seeking to carry on his profession from a shop. It is further submitted that the landlady has seven other shops in a very busy market place where her son and daughters-in-law can very well carry on their business. Learned counsel further submits that in case the premises are dilapidated and unfit for human habitation, there is no question of the landlady putting it to use in any manner. It is further submitted that evidence of the building expert examined by the petitioner has been wrongly ignored by both the learned courts below. It is thus prayed that the present revision petiti