The landlord/landlady's discretion in running a business and their best judgment of their requirements cannot be dictated by the tenant.

JUDGMENT

Manjari Nehru Kaul, J. (Oral) - The petitioner-tenant (hereinafter referred to as 'the tenant') is impugning the concurrent findings recorded by the Rent Controller, Narnaul and the Appellate Authority, Narnaul vide which he was directed to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the demised premises (as detailed in para No.1 of the judgment of the Rent Controller dated 04.10.2016) to the landlady. The tenant has also challenged the order dated 09.09.2021 vide which his application for leading additional evidence was dismissed by the Appellate Authority.

2. Respondent No.1-landlady (hereinafter referred to as 'landlady') filed the eviction petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short, 'the Act') on the following grounds:-

(i) that tenant Sunil Kumar had not tendered arrears of rent from 01.04.2012 to 30.09.2013 despite repeated requests.

(ii) that the floor and walls of the demised premises were damaged by the tenant thereby diminishing its value and utility.

(iii) that the demised premises was sublet by the tenant to respondent No.2 without obtaining permission of the landlady or intimating her, in violation of the terms of the rent deed.

(iv) that the demised premises was required by the landlady for her personal necessity to run a business therein.

3. On being put to notice, the tenant appeared and filed his written reply wherein a preliminary objection qua maintainability of the petition was taken. It was averred therein that the tenant had never refused to pay rent to the landlady, however, it was she herself who had refused to accept the rent since she wanted the tenant and respondent No.2 to be evicted from the demised premises. The tenant further denied that he had caused any damage to the demised premises or had sublet the same to respondent No.2. It was rather submitted that respondent No.2 was not a sub-tenant but was his employee.

4. Respondent No.2 in his written reply also denied that the landlady required the demised premises for her personal necessity. It was submitted that the landlady was living in a joint family and still further her husband and other relatives had well established businesses. Thus, there was no requirement as pleaded by the landlady to run her business in the demised premises. Respondent No.2 also denied that he had been sublet the demised premises where he was now running a garment shop.

5. Upon consideration of the material and other evidence led, the learned Rent Controller concluded that the tenant had sublet the demised premises to respondent No.2 without the permission and consent of the landlady. It was further held that the requirement of the landlady was genuine. Accordingly, the tenant and respondent No.2 were ordered to be evicted from the demised premises. The appeal preferred to impugn the judgment and decree of the Rent Controller was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. Hence, the instant revision petition against the concurrent findings of both the Courts below.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the tenant vehemently submits that the impugned orders are patently erroneous as they have been passed without appreciating the evidence in their right perspective. He submits that the Courts below failed to appreciate that the landlady during her cross-examination had admitted being aware of respondent No.2 being an employee of the tenant. Therefore, the finding qua subletting of the demised premises on the face of it was erroneous and deserved to be set aside. He further submits that during pendency of the appeal before the Appellate Authority, the tenant had moved an application for additional evidence (Annexure P-3) for placing on record his Income Tax Returns for the relevant period which had been erroneously dismissed. Learned counsel while inviting the attention of this Court to the Income Tax Returns which have been annexed with the petition submits that a perusal of the profit and loss statements appended with them