The court emphasized the importance of proving bonafide necessity for eviction and highlighted the significance of raising all relevant arguments before the lower authorities.

JUDGMENT

Alka Sarin, J. - CM-22387-CII-2019

1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 28 days in refiling the petition.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 28 days in refiling the petition is condoned.

3. CM stands disposed off.

CR-6833-2019

4. The present revision petition has been preferred by the tenantpetitioner against the order dated 26.07.2017 passed by the Rent Controller and the order dated 16.07.2019 passed by the Appellate Authority ordering his eviction from the shop in dispute shown with red colour in the site plan annexed with the petition.

5. Before adverting to the facts of the present case it is pertinent to note that the order of ejectment was affirmed by the Appellate Authority on 16.07.2019 and the present revision petition was filed on 11.08.2019. Thereafter, the matter was repeatedly adjourned at the request of learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner. Eventually, on 17.05.2022 the following order was passed :

'The present revision petition is of the year 2019. Repeatedly, the case is being adjourned on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In fact, none had put in appearance on 17.03.2020 and same was the position on 23.03.2022. Today also, none has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner. However, an adjournment slip has been circulated on the ground that the counsel is suffering from fever.

In the interest of justice, adjourned to 02.08.2022.

It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be granted and in case the matter is not argued on the next date of hearing the same shall be dismissed for nonprosecution."

6. Today, at the outset, learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner was put a query by the Court as to whether the eviction order stood executed. Learned counsel has candidly admitted that the tenant-petitioner since stands evicted from the premises. It is, however, stated that the counsel would like to argue the case on merits.

7. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the landlordrespondent filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 1973 Act') for eviction of the tenant-petitioner from the shop in dispute being part and parcel of a building bearing House No.1476/A, Punjabi Market, Rewari, Tehsil and District Rewari. It was averred in the eviction petition that earlier the tenant-petitioner was a tenant in the shop situated in the North of the shop in dispute qua which neighbours Girdhari Lal & Devraj filed a civil suit and in order to escape the litigation the shop in dispute was given on rent verbally to the tenant-petitioner and the vacant possession of the shop to the North of the shop in dispute was handed over to the landlord-respondent. It was averred in the eviction petition that rent @ Rs.500/- per month from 01.12.2002 till the date of filing of the petition was due. It was further averred that the son of the landlord-respondent had completed his BCA in June 2010 and that the landlord-respondent intended to settle his son in the shop in dispute by joining two shops i.e. the shop in dispute and the shop towards North of the shop in dispute, for opening a computer centre for his son. The eviction petition was contested by the tenant-petitioner. It was averred in the written statement that both the shops i.e. the shop in dispute and the shop towards the North of the shop in dispute were in possession of the tenant-petitioner. It was further averred that the landlord-respondent had entered into an oral agreement to sell qua the shop in dispute against a sale consideration of Rs.1,40,000/- out of which the landlord-respondent had received an amount of Rs.90,000/- as earnest money. It was further averred that the shop in dispute had been reconstructed by the tenant-petitioner at his own expenses and hence the question of arrears did not arise. It was further averred that the rent was to be paid from 01.08.2003 which had duly been paid, however