A landlord's personal necessity for his son’s business justifies eviction, and the tenant's arguments regarding available space do not negate this need.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

Alka Sarin, J.

The present revision petition has been preferred by the tenant-petitioner challenging the eviction order dated 15.01.2014 passed by the Appellate Authority, and the order dated 21.10.2011 passed by the Rent Controller with respect to the findings on Issue Nos.2 and 3.

2. The brief facts relevant to the present case are that the landlord-respondent filed a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 for eviction of the tenant-petitioner on the ground of arrears of rent and bonafide personal necessity of his son. It was pleaded by the landlord-respondent that he was ex-partner/co-owner of M/s Sewak Metal Industries, Jaroda Gate, Jagadhri and was the landlord. The petitioner was a tenant in the demised premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 990/- including house tax and that there existed relationship of landlord and tenant. It was further averred that the tenant-petitioner was in arrears of rent for a period of 12 months w.e.f. 01.12.2006 to 31.11.2007 amounting to Rs. 11,880/- besides interest and costs. It was further the case that the landlord-respondent has one son namely Jatin who had completed his education and wanted to start his own business and therefore the demised premises was required by the landlord-respondent on the ground of personal necessity of his son. It was further averred in the petition that the landlord-respondent was not occupying any other shop in the urban area concerned and had not vacated any shop or building in the said urban area without sufficient cause after the commencement of the 1973 Act. Upon notice the tenant-petitioner appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability and no cause of action and that the petition had been filed only to harass the tenant-petitioner and to increase the rent. It was further the case set up that the building No.MCJ-654 consisted of 3 shops and one big gate in front portion and on the back side there were four rooms, four big sheds and one big hall having covered area of 500 square yards which was in possession of the landlord-respondent wherein he was running a factory earlier. Subsequently, he gave the back portion sheds on rent and the landlord-respondent, being a man of quarrelsome nature, got the sheds vacated by harassing the tenants and that the said portion was lying vacant and was in possession of the landlord-respondent. In the front portion one shop was in possession of Pritam Yadav as a tenant against whom the landlord-respondent had filed several petitions for harassing him. It was further the case that the landlord-respondent had also got other premises in addition to the premises in dispute and that the son of the landlord-respondent had never been seen at Yamuna Nagar and was doing his business outside.

3. On the basis of the pleadings the following issues were framed :

"1. Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected from the suit property ? OPP

2. Whether the petition is not maintainable ? OPR

3. Whether petitioner has no cause of action to file the present petition ? OPD

4. Relief."

4. The Rent Controller held that the landlord-respondent had failed to establish the ground for eviction of the tenant-petitioner from the premises in dispute. The Issue Nos.2 and 3 were decided against the tenant-petitioner-tenant and in favour of the landlord-respondent. The ejectment petition was dismissed. An appeal was preferred by the landlord-respondent and cross-objections were preferred by the tenant-petitioner. The said appeal was allowed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 15.01.2014 and the cross-objections filed by the tenant-petitioner were dismissed. Hence, the present revision petition by the tenant-petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner would contend that the landlord-respondent has sufficient vacant space to start business for his son. It is further the contention that the Rent Controller had dismissed the ejectment