The court emphasized the necessity of providing an opportunity to rebut additional evidence to uphold the principles of natural justice in eviction proceedings.

JUDGMENT

Gurbir Singh, J.

CM-24594-C-II-2014 : For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 60 days in re-filing the present revision petition is condoned. The application stands disposed of.

2. CM-24595-C-II-2014: For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and Annexures P-1 to P-6 are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.

3. Main Case: Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 28.04.2014, passed by learned Appellate Authority, Sonipat, whereby judgment dated 29.11.2012, passed by learned Rent Controller, Sonipat, regarding ejectment of tenant, has been reversed on the ground of concealment of facts by the landlord and failure to prove bonafide necessity of the disputed shop.

4. The brief facts of the case, as culled out from the paper book, are that petitioner Sant Lal (landlord) filed petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as - the Act), for ejectment of respondents namely Surender Singh and Azad Singh (tenants) from the shop in question on the grounds of non-payment of rent, change of user, the premises being unfit for human habitation and personal necessity. So far as three grounds of non-payment of rent, change of user and the demised premises having become unfit for human habitation were concerned, the landlord could not satisfy the learned Rent Controller and no relief was given qua these issues. However, since it was proved by the petitioner/landlord that he required the premises in question for personal necessity i.e. for starting business by his unemployed son, the petition succeeded only on the ground of personal necessity and vide judgment dated 29.11.2012, respondents/tenants were directed to vacate the shop in question and hand over the possession to the petitioner/landlord within a period of two months.

5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of eviction dated 29.11.2012, passed by learned Rent Controller, respondent no.1-Surender Singh (tenant) filed appeal before the Appellate Authority.

6. Along with the appeal, tenant also moved application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC alleging therein that the landlord had six shops in the same building and to prove this fact, the tenant intended to place on record certified copy of a petition under Section 6-A of the Act, filed by another tenant namely Saleem Ahmad, occupying some other premises of the landlord, which was pending before the learned Rent Controller. The tenant also intended to place on record rent receipts issued by the landlord to that tenant. Upon notice of the application, landlord contested the same on the ground that the said petition and documents were well within the knowledge of the tenant earlier but he failed to prove the fact that despite due diligence, he could not place the same on record earlier. So, the application was liable to be dismissed.

7. Vide impugned judgment dated 28.04.2014, learned Appellate Authority allowed the aforesaid application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC filed by the tenant. Simultaneously, appeal filed by the tenant was also allowed thereby setting aside the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2012, passed by the learned Rent Controller in ejectment petition filed by the landlord. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner/landlord has approached this Court by way of instant revision petition.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that he needed the shop to start business for his unemployed son Mohit Pruthi. It was explained that petitioner inherited the shop in question and other building after the death of his father and was residing with his son Mohit Pruthi. Previously, his two sons i.e. Mohit Pruthi and Vikas Pruthi were jointly doing business of clothes in another shop in the name of Kanik Garments but when both of his sons separated on 01.01.2009 and the said shop went to the share of Vikas Pruthi, at that time, Mohit Pruthi bec