The crucial date for determining the landlord's bona fide requirement is the date of filing the eviction petition.

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J.

1. This is tenant’s revision petition against the order of eviction dated 5.8.2011 passed by the Rent Controller ordering his eviction, as well as the order dated 17.1.2013 passed by the Appellate Authority, affirming the same.

2. The facts in brief are, the three respondents (hereinafter referred to as ‘the landlords’), who are brothers, filed an ejectment application/petition under The Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short ‘the Act of 1973’), claiming themselves to be owners of Shop no.15 in New Vegetable Market, Palwal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the demised premises’). It was earlier allotted to the landlords’ father, Shiv Lal, who expired in October 2002. Thereafter, it was allotted to the landlords, vide re-allotment letter dated 7.4.2007, as incorporated in the records of the Municipal Council, Palwal. The respondent was tenant over the demised premises for the last twenty years. Initially, the rate of rent was Rs.500/- per month and later, at the time of filing of the petition, the rate was Rs.3000/-per month, including house tax. The grounds on which eviction was sought were, non-payment of rent, personal necessity, change of user and that the respondent-tenant’s ownership of two other shops sufficient to fulfill his business requirements.

3. Regarding non-payment of arrears of rent, it was pleaded that the respondent/tenant was a chronic defaulter and was in arrears of rent from 1.7.2005 to 30.6.2008. On the ground of personal necessity, it was pleaded that the demised premises was required by the landlord for their sons, Amit Kumar son of petitioner no.2 and Rohit Kumar son of petitioner no.3, who were about to complete graduation. The landlords wanted to settle them in the business of vegetable commission agents and the demised premises was suitable for them being in the vegetable market itself. It was also pleaded that the landlords/ petitioners were not occupying any other shop which was fit for the aforesaid business, nor had they got vacated any shop after commencement of the Act of 1973, in the urban area of Palwal town. On the ground of change of user, it was pleaded that the demised premises was being used to run grocery shop, though it was rented out to run as a vegetable shop. Lastly, it was pleaded that the respondent/tenant owned two shops in Shiv Colony, Palwal, which were lying vacant and were sufficient for his business needs.

4. The ejectment petition was contested by the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘the tenant’) mainly on the ground that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He claimed himself to be a tenant under one Sandeep Goyal, who was collecting rent from him since January 1999 and issuing receipts thereupon. He was directed by Shiv Lal, landlords’ father, to make payment of rent to his grandson Sandeep Goyal. It was also stated that the demised premises was never reallotted to the landlords, and in case there was any such transfer, the same was illegal, null and void.

5. The following issues were settled between the parties on conclusion of pleadings:

1. Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected from the demised shop on the grounds mentioned in the petition? OPP

2. Whether present execution petition is not maintainable? OPR

3. Whether petitioners have got no locus standi to file the present petition? OPR

4. Relief.

6. In order to prove their respective case, the parties led evidence. The landlords examined PW-1 Attar Singh, Mandi Supervisor, brought photocopy of the re-allotment letter of the demised premises in favour of the landlords. PW-2 Lekh Ram, House Tax clerk of the Municipal Council, Palwal, was also examined who brought on record copies of Ex.P-3 to P-5, i.e., house tax assessment for the years 1995-96, 2000-01 and 2005-06, wherein Jugal Kishore had been named as tenant. Gian Chand, landlord/petitioner no.3 testified as PW-4 and referred to devolution of ownership of the demised premises on the l