A landlord seeking ejectment must clearly establish bona fide personal necessity, and concealment of other properties does not negate this requirement.

JUDGMENT :

Ms. Nidhi Gupta, J.

1. The tenant is in revision against the judgment dated 22.11.2024 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Ambala allowing the appeal of the respondent/landlord against the dismissal of his ejectment petition by the learned Rent Controller, Ambala vide order dated 04.08.2018; and impugned order dated 22.11.2024 (Annexure P1) whereby application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for additional evidence filed by respondent/landlord has been allowed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), for the ejectment of the petitioner from the shop bearing private no.4, part of property bearing house tax no.1431/4, situated at Shukul Kund Road, Ambala City and bounded as: North: Shop bearing private no.3, part of H.No. 1431/4, Ambala City; South: Passage to house no.1431/4, Shukul Kund Road Ambala City; East: Main Road; West: Property bearing House tax no.1431/4 Ambala City (hereinafter referred to as ‘the demised premises’). The shop in question was let-out by Sh. Ram Chander/ the father of respondent-landlord to Sh. Ram Saran the father of the Petitioner/tenant in the year 1975 at a nominal rent. After the death of his father the petitioner Sanjay Kumar became the tenant and started paying the rent to the respondent-landlord. From the year 2001, the rate of rent of shop in question is Rs. 600/-per month. The respondent-landlord had filed various ejectment petitions against the petitioner on the ground of non-payment of rent from the year 2001 onwards itself. Ex.R-1, and Ex.R-13 to Ex.R-16 show that landlord filed ejectment petition against the tenant/petitioner on the ground of non-payment of rent for the period from 2001 to 2004. Ex.R-3 and Ex.R-4, and Ex.R-19 to Ex.R-21, show that landlord had filed ejectment petition against the petitioner on the ground of non-payment of rent for the period from 01.11.2006 to 31.12.2006.Then the landlord made a statement that rent has been deposited and the petition was withdrawn. Ex.R-5 and Ex.R-6, Ex.R-22 and Ex.R-23 show that the landlord was constrained to file yet another ejectment petition against the petitioner on the ground of non-payment of rent for the period from 01.01.2007 to 31.07.2007. The said petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The present ejectment petition was filed by the respondent-landlord on 14.06.2012. The respondent had sought the eviction of the petitioner from the demised premises primarily on 2 grounds - arrears of rent; and bona fide personal necessity.

3. Upon notice, the petitioner had put in appearance resisting the rent petition on numerous grounds. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned Rent Controller vide order dated 20.02.2013:-

“1. Whether the respondent is liable to be evicted from the shop as detailed in the head note of the plaint on the grounds of ejectment taken in the petition? OPA

2. Whether the petitioner has no locus standi to file the petition? OPR

3. Whether the petitioner is estopped from filing the present petition? OPR

4. Whether petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR

5. Whether petition has not come to the court with clean hands and has concealed the material facts from the Court? OPR

6. Relief”

4. Upon appraisal, the said ejectment petition was dismissed by the Ld. Rent Controller, Ambala on 04.08.2018 primarily holding that the respondent had concealed other properties owned by him; and that the respondent had failed to comply with provision of Section 13 of the Act. On 11.09.2018, the respondent landlord preferred appeal under Section