The filing of a fair rent petition does not negate a landlord's bona fide requirement for eviction under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973.

JUDGMENT :

Vikas Bahl, J.

1. The petitioner-tenant has filed the present revision petition challenging the order dated 30.03.2024 vide which the Appellate Authority, Narnaul had set aside the judgment dated 01.11.2018 passed by the Rent Controller, Narnaul and had allowed the eviction petition filed by the respondent-landlord under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as “the 1973 Act”) on the ground of bona fide necessity.

2. Brief facts in the present case are that the respondent landlord had filed an application for eviction (Annexure P-1) on 17.04.2017 under Section 13 of the 1973 Act, of one shop which was situated at Mohalla Kailash Nagar, Rewari Road, Narnaul, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mahendergarh. A perusal of the said application for eviction (Annexure P-1) would show that it was the case of the respondent-landlord that the premises in question was let out to the petitioner-tenant vide rent note dated 22.05.1989 at the rate of Rs.300/- per month besides house tax for three months. It was stated that the period of tenancy had already expired and the present petitioner was holding the possession of the shop in dispute as a statutory tenant and that w.e.f. 01.01.2011, the rent payable was Rs.750/- per month with house tax. The eviction of the premises in question was sought on the ground of non-payment of rent from 01.02.2016 to 31.03.2017, on account of personal necessity and also on account of the premises being unfit and unsafe for human habitation, as the present petitioner had made a hole in the ceiling of the shop in dispute and had got installed a dish for TV, as well as on account of the other acts of the petitioner. With respect to the ground of personal necessity, it had been stated that the respondent landlord had retired from the Indian Air Force in the year 1982 after which he had worked in the private sector and had attained the age of 68 years and could not do any job any further and thus, required the shop in dispute for his own work. It was further stated that the shop in question was 8x10 feet.

3. A reply dated 09.10.2017 (Annexure P-2) was filed by the petitioner-tenant to the said eviction petition and the fact that the respondent had retired from the Indian Air Force and thereafter, had also done a private job for sometime, had not been disputed. The Rent Controller had dismissed the said eviction petition vide its judgment dated 01.11.2018.

4. Aggrieved against the judgment dated 01.11.2018 passed by the Rent Controller, the respondent-landlord had filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority vide impugned judgment dated 30.03.2024 had allowed the said appeal and had set aside the judgment dated 01.11.2018 passed by the Rent Controller and had directed the present petitioner-tenant to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises to the landlord within a period of three months from the date of passing of the impugned judgment. The eviction was passed on the ground of personal necessity and while considering the said ground, the Appellate Authority had taken into consideration the plea raised by the landlord, which was supported by his evidence as PW1. The Appellate Authority further took into consideration the cross-examination of the present petitioner-tenant, in which the tenant had stated that he was not aware about whether the respondent-landlord was running the business of property dealing from his house. It was observed that the Rent Controller had primarily rejected the petition of the respondent-landlord on the ground that he had also filed a petition under Section 4 of the Rent Act for fixation of fair rent and thus, the requirement was not bona fide and that the said reasoning was against law, inasmuch as, filing of the petition under Section 4 of the Rent Act for fixation of fair rent was an independent right of the landlord and that enhancement of fair rent could not be made a ground to dis