JUDGMENT

Mr. Rajbir Sehrawat, J. (Oral)

The present revision petition has been filed under Section 15 (6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (in short 'the Haryana Rent Act ') for setting aside the impugned order dated 06.05.2016 passed by the appellate Authority, Ambala whereby the rent appeal filed by the respondent-tenant against the ejectment order dated 11.12.2015 passed by the Rent Controller, Ambala, has been allowed.

2. The brief facts of this case are that Joginder Nath Chawla, the power of attorney holder of his wife Smt. Vijay Chawla, the landlady and the owner of the property in question, had filed the eviction petition against the respondent-tenant; asserting therein that the petitioner inducted the respondent as a tenant in the shop No. 1463/B, Block No. 4, Naddi Mohalla, Ambala City on 01.02.1988 @ Rs.500/- per month and a rent note was also executed in this regard. The rent was agreed to be increased @ 10% after every three years. Accordingly, the last time, the respondent - tenant had paid Rs.900/- per month as rent to the petitioner. However, the petitioner required the shop in question for the purpose of settling her widowed daughter-in-law and two grand sons who are the sons of deceased son of the petitioner. The type of business was stated to be establishing a designed Computer Centre by demolishing all the three shops at the premises and erecting a single big premises by combining all three shops.

3. Contesting the eviction petition, the respondent-tenant had taken a plea that the requirement of the landlord was not bona fide. In fact, daughter-in-law of the petitioner was already in Government Job, therefore, she did not require the premises for settling herself in the business. The grand sons were only minors, aged about five and ten years, on the date of filing of the petition. It was also pleaded that the petitioner was having other shops in the same urban area. Hence, the petitioner-landlord is not entitled to get the respondent-tenant evicted from the premises in question.

4. After appreciating the material on record and hearing the parties, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the respondent - tenant vide order dated 11.12.2015. Aggrieved against the same, the respondent-tenant filed the appeal; which has been decided in his favour; and the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller has been set aside. Hence, the petitioner-landlord has preferred the present revision petition. It further deserves to mention that during pendency of the rent petition, Joginder Nath Chawla had died and thereafter the proceedings are being carried out/looked after by the landlady Ms Vijay Chawla herself, for the same purpose.

5. Arguing the case, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the lower appellate Court has wrongly reversed the findings recorded by the Rent Controller. The eviction petition was rightly filed by the petitioner for the bona fide requirement of widowed daughter-in-law, and on the date when the eviction petition was filed, daughter-in-law of the petitioner was not employed anywhere. The eviction petition was filed in the year 2011 whereas the daughter-in-law got Government Job in March, 2012. Hence, the assertion of the respondent-tenant qua the widowed daughter-in-law being employed is not sustainable. Otherwise also, the factum of employment of daughter-in-law of the petitioner is totally irrelevant for the purpose of eviction. The financial capacity of the landlord is not the criteria for denying him the eviction of the tenant. Counsel for the petitioner has fur