The landlord's bonafide personal necessity for the demised premises can justify eviction under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Vashisth, J.

1. By way of present revision petition, petitioners have impugned ejectment order dated 29.03.2019, passed by learned Rent Controller, Ambala, in Rent Petition No. 1791 of 2013, as well as judgment dated 13.05.2022, passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Ambala; whereby appeal filed by the petitioners against the ejectment order, was dismissed.

Petitioners herein are the Legal Representatives of Smt. Tarawanti, who faced the ejectment petition as respondents (hereafter to be referred as ‘tenants’), under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act No. 11 of 1973. The said ejectment petition was instituted on 12.02.2013, by (1) Smt. Naval Kishori Vats wife of Rakesh Vats, and (2) Balkesh Vats son of Rakesh Vats (hereafter to be referred as ‘landlords’).

2. Landlords instituted the rent petition seeking eviction of the tenants from demised premises, i.e. Shop No. 4168-69 (at some places in the impugned ejectment order and judgment passed by learned Courts below, it is mentioned as ‘1468-69’), D.C. Road, Sadar Bazar, Ambala Cantt., on the ground of ‘ own bonafide personal use and occupation’. It was claimed that tenants are running a cloth shop in the demised premises, whereas landlord No. 2 – Balkesh Vats is running a coaching institute alongwith his wife, under the name and style of “Saraswati Open School”, in a rented premises, bearing No. 4466/67, D.C. Road, Sadar Bazar, Ambala Cantt., which is just adjacent to the demised premises. He wanted to open a Computer Institute in the demised premises, to extend his institute.

3. After pleadings of the parties, learned Rent Controller, vide order dated 05.11.2015, framed following five issues:-

“1. Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected from the shop in dispute on the ground of personal necessity etc. as alleged? OPP.

2. Whether the present application is not maintainable in the present form? OPR.

3. Whether the petitioners have concealed and suppressed the material facts from the court? OPR.

4. Whether the application is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR.

5. Relief.”

4. While dealing with Issue Nos. 1 and 2, and after going through the evidence available on record, learned Rent Controller discussed the fact that landlords are running a coaching institute under the name and style of “Saraswati Open School”, in a rented premises, bearing No. 4466/67, since the year 1967, which is just adjacent to the demised premises, whereas the tenants are enjoying the demised shop at a meagre rent. It is also held that the landlords are in possession of the first and second floors of the demised shop, which are being used by them for their residential purposes. On the contrary, tenants are running their shop, dealing in the business of clothes, on the ground floor of the demised premises.

5. To defeat the arguments raised by the landlords, a futile attempt has been made by the tenants by submitting that the premises where ‘Saraswati Open School’ is run by landlord No. 2, is actually owned by the landlords and, therefore, ejectment petition has not been filed by disclosing all the required facts in regard to the properties owned by the landlords. On the said ground, a lengthy cross-examination has been done by the tenants, but nothing came out to support their submission. Rather, a categoric denial has came across in the cross-examination of PW1 – Balkesh Vats, wherein ownership of the property where Saraswati Open School is being run is denied, and a fact emerged that said property is taken by the landlords on rental basis.

6. Realising the fact that despite being owner of the demised premises, landlords are forced to pay rent for running their institute in the property owned by somebody else, learned Rent Controller, Ambala, allowed the rent petition and passed the ejectment order dated 29.03.2019, directing the tenants to hand over vacant possession of the demised premises to the landlords within three months from t