JUDGMENT

Rajbir Sehrawat, J. (Oral)

The petitioner has filed this civil revision under Section 15 (6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act 1973 (in short, the Rent Act), praying for setting aside order dated 18.12.2006 passed by the Appellate Authority-cum-District Judge, Kurukshetra whereby the judgment dated 30.05.2006 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Kurukshetra was set aside and the ejectment petition filed by the landlord was dismissed.

2. The brief facts, as involved in this case, are that the petitioners filed the eviction petition against the respondent before the Rent Controller, Kurukshetra asserting therein that they were the owner of two shops situated at Shahabad. Earlier the rent was Rs.500/- per month which was ultimately increased to Rs.750/- per month w.e.f. 01.04.1998 till 30.04.2001. On these facts the eviction petition was filed on the ground of non-payment of rent, personal requirement for establishing business for son of petitioner No. 1, as well as, on account of material alteration in the shop in question. During the pendency of the proceedings rent was paid by the respondent. Therefore, the surviving grounds for eviction were the personal necessity and the material alteration.

3. After considering the respective evidence led by the parties and their arguments, the Rent Controller allowed the eviction petition on the ground of personal necessity, though the other ground of material alteration was not found sustainable. Challenging the said order passed by the Rent Controller the respondent approached the appellate authority. The said authority has reversed the order passed by the Rent Controller. Hence, the present petition.

4. Arguing the case, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners had pleaded in the rent petition the requirement of the premises for establishing business for son of petitioner No. 1, who was having a diploma in electrical engineering. All other requirements of not having any other premises in the same urban area and not having vacated any other premises without sufficient cause; were also pleaded and established during the trial. Not only that even the son of petitioner No. 1 was duly examined before the Rent Controller to establish his necessity and his qualification, as well as, he not having any other similar premises in the same urban area. Therefore, the Rent Controller had rightly passed the eviction order. The Appellate Authority has wrongly reversed the order by recording perverse finding in so far as the lower appellate authority has unnecessarily read the fact of the petitioners having another premises in the same urban area. The said another premises, was also rented out to the Bank at the time of filing of the petition. Therefore, the petitioners were not having any other premises for establishing son of petitioner No. 1 on the date of filing of the petition. It is a different matter that during the pendency of the petition the bank was merged with another bank and the said premises was vacated by the bank, which was sold out by the petitioner No. 1. Counsel has further submitted that another ground taken by the appellate authority to deny the necessity of the son of petitioner No. 1 is that the he was having a passport and therefore, he could have gone abroad and settled there. None of these facts are relevant for decision of a rent petition. The appellate court has gone totally wrong in law.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent has submitted that though above said the other property was rented out to the Bank, however, the bank was not carrying out any operations from the said premises for the last nine months, therefore, the petitioner No. 1 could have very well used that premises for establishing his son. The counsel has further submitted that earlier two more petitions were filed by the landlord-petitioners but the same were withdrawn. Therefore, they are e-stopped from filing the current petitio