JUDGMENT

Alka Sarin, J. (Oral)

The present revision petition has been preferred by the landlord-petitioners against the orders passed by both the Authorities below dismissing their ejectment petition.

2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the petitioners filed a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Haryana Rent Act') for ejectment of the tenant-respondent from property bearing nos.752 and 752/1, Bich Ki Diggi, Ambala Cantt. It was averred in the ejectment petition that the tenant-respondent took part of property no.752, Bich Ki Diggi, Ambala Cantt. on a rent @ Rs.200/- per month from the grandmother of the landlord-petitioners for his residential purpose and that the electricity and water charges were to be paid by the tenant-respondent. The tenant-respondent agreed to pay the advance rent at the rate of Rs.75/- per month. It was further averred that the tenant-respondent was liable to be evicted from the demised premises on the ground that he had not paid the rent w.e.f. 01.08.2004 onwards. It was also averred that the tenant respondent was creating a nuisance in the locality. It was further the case set up that the landlord-petitioners required the demised premises for their personal use and occupation because the landlord-petitioner nos.1, 3 and 4 have no house for their residential premises and they are living in a rented accommodation situated at Ram Bagh Road, Ambala Cantt. It was also averred that the tenant-respondent has his own house and he can safely reside there. The landlord-petitioners also took the plea that the demised premises were unfit and unsafe for human habitation.

3. The tenant-respondent filed a written statement raising preliminary objections qua maintainability, locus standi, non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties and claimed that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. On merits, it was denied that the petitioners are owners of the demised premises and that the respondent was a tenant under the temple and one Ram Chander, Gardner, who used to collect the rent on behalf of the temple. It was also submitted that the rent along with interest and costs had been tendered with the condition that the same would be paid to the correct owner. The bonafide necessity of the landlord-petitioners was also denied.

4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :

1. Whether respondent is liable to be ejected on the ground of non payment of rent? OPP

2. Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected on the ground of nuisance? OPP

3. Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected on the ground of personal necessity? OPP

4. Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected on the ground that building is not fit for human habitation? OPP

5. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR

6. Whether the petitioner has no locus standi? OPR

7. Whether there is no relationship of landlord and tenant? OPR

8. Whether the petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties? OPR

9. Relief.

5. The rent was paid by the tenant-respondent and hence, the ground of arrears of rent did not survive. The plea qua nuisance was not pressed at the time of arguments. Qua personal necessity, the Rent Controller held that the landlord-petitioners had failed to prove their personal necessity inasmuch as except for the bald statement ofetitioner no.1 - Mohinder Kumar - there was no other oral or documentary evidence to prove the personal necessity of the landlord-petitioners. No rent receipt qua the accommodation which was alleged to have been taken on rent was produced on the record. It was further held that though it has been averred by the landlord-petitioners that their family consisted of 21 members, however, except for the bald statement there was no evidence to this effect. The ground of personal necessity was held as not proved. Qua the demised premises being unfit and unsafe for human h