The central legal point established in the judgment is the genuine and bonafide need of the landlord for the shop under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973.

AMARJOT BHATTI, J.

1. The petitioner/tenant – Atam Parkash has filed civil revision against impugned judgment dated 24.04.2013 passed by learned Appellate Authority, Bhiwani vide which the appeal preferred by petitioner/tenant Atam Parkash was dismissed and the ejectment order passed by learned Rent Controller, Bhiwani vide judgment dated 08.05.2012 was upheld.

2. As per the facts of the case, Arun Kumar Jain, the landlord (petitioner in the main case) filed ejectment petition under Section 13 of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 for the ejectment of respondent Atam Parkash from the demised shop situated at Kesri Bhawan, Railway Road, in front of Gurudwara, Bhiwani (detailed and described in head note of the petition). The said shop was let out to the father of respondent, namely, Chander Bhan at the rate of Rs. 69/- per month for running the business of Welding. Sh. Chander Bhan expired 10 years ago and after his death, the respondent Atam Parkash being his legal heir became tenant in the said shop and in this way, there existed the relationship of landlord and tenant. The petitioner sought the ejectment of the respondent from the said shop firstly on the ground that the respondent had changed the user of the shop as the father of respondent had taken the shop for running the business of Welding, whereas, the respondent was running the business of garments. The second ground taken by the petitioner was that he wanted to open his office of Chartered Accountant and also required the same for his marriageable children and family. The last ground taken by the petitioner for ejectment of respondent from the said shop was on the ground of nuisance as the respondent quarrelled with his clients when they parked their vehicles. On the aforesaid grounds, it was prayed that the respondent may be ejected from the demised shop as detailed in the petition and he may be directed to handover the vacant possession in favour of the petitioner.

3. Notice of the petition was given to the respondent who contested the present petition and filed written reply, wherein he has denied the averments as mentioned in the rent petition. He submitted that the petitioner has no locus-standi to file the present petition. It was denied that the demised shop was let out for running the business of Welding. However, the relationship of landlord and tenant and rate of rent was admitted. It was denied that the respondent has made any addition or alteration in the demised shop. It was further denied that the petitioner required the demised shop for his personal need. The creation of nuisance by the respondent on the parking of the vehicles was also denied. It was prayed that the petition was not maintainable and the same deserved dismissal with cost.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Rent Controller :-

(1) Whether the respondent has changed the user of the shop in dispute without the consent of the petitioner? OPP

(2) Whether the shop in dispute is bonafidely required by the petitioner for his own use and occupation? OPP

(3) Whether the respondent is creating nuisance in the shop in dispute? OPP

(4) Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR

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

(6) Relief.

5. In order to prove the rent petition, the petitioner Arun Kumar Jain himself stepped into the witness box as AW-2. He also examined Anand Aggarwal as AW-1 and Kanwar Pal, Draftsman as AW-3. Thereafter, learned counsel for the petitioner closed the evidence after tendering documents Mark-A to Mark-E.

6. In order to rebut the case of the petitioner, the respondent examined himself as RW-1. He also examined Chaman Lal Kaushik as RW-2 and Naresh Kumar as RW-3. Thereafter, learned counsel for the respondent tendered documents i.e. Ex.D3 to Ex.D6 and Mark-D1 to Mark-D8 and closed the evidence.

7. In rebuttal evidence, the learned counsel for the p