JUDGMENT :

Sukhvinder Kaur, J.

1. The instant revision petition has been filed against the judgments dated 11.07.2019 passed by the Rent Controller, Hisar, whereby rent petition filed by the respondent/landlord was allowed and 07.05.2024 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Hisar, whereby appeal preferred by the petitioner/tenant was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case as per rent petition are that the rent petitioner is owner and landlord of the demised premises which was taken on rent by the respondent from the petitioner in the year 1970 @ Rs. 1200/- per month plus house tax, for the business of making iron grills, gates, jail and shutters etc. In the year 1996, rent of demised premises was increased to Rs. 3000/- per month plus house tax. Thereafter, respondent requested the petitioner to get constructed one store and shed in the premises in question and to renovate main gate and office. Petitioner got constructed two stores, a big shed and renovated the main gate and office of the demised premises, upon which rent of the premises was increased to Rs. 5000/- per month plus house tax w.e.f. 01.04.2011 vide rent note dated 30.03.2001. It was alleged that always rent was increased by the respondent with the mutual consent of the petitioner. Therefore, no fair rent has been fixed in respect of the premises in question. Eviction of the respondent from the premises in question was sought on the following grounds:

(a) That respondent/tenant had neither paid nor tendered the arrears of rent of the shop in question @ Rs. 5000/- per month since 01.08.2007.

(b) The petitioner/landlord required the premises in question for his bonafide personal necessity, as he is owner of one big building adjacent to the premises in question (on the western side) which consists of many rooms on the ground floor and on the first floor which were previously used by the applicant for running a guest house. Due to shortage of parking and other facilities attached to said guest house, business of the petitioner to run the said building as a guest house did not flourish and entire building is lying vacant and unused. Petitioner wanted to start PG (Paying Guest House) in the said building by renting/letting out the rooms on the ground floor and first floor of the said building, to the students and working men and women. For this purpose, petitioner wanted to demolish the present construction of the premises in question after getting it vacated from the respondent and wanted to construct a common room and canteen along with parking area for the tenants of the PG. He also wanted to leave an open passage for ventilation purpose and wanted to construct an underground water tank for catering to the water needs of PG.

(c) Premises in question was best suitable place to use the same as parking area, common room, canteen, passage etc., because premises in question was situated adjacent to the proposed building of PG.

(d) Petitioner was a senior citizen having crossed the age of 78 years. He had only one married son who was busy in his own occupation of running a marriage palace known as Millennium Palace near the premises in question. Petitioner had no right, title, interest or connection with the said business of his son. He wanted to start his own business of running a PG in the adjacent building after getting the premises in question vacated from the respondent. He was an income tax payee for the last many years and had sufficient funds at his disposal to raise the construction and to start the above said business of running PG.

(d) Petitioner was not earning sufficient income from his profession of Advocate so he wanted to increase his income by starting a PG in the adjacent building after getting it vacated from the respondent.

(f) Petitioner had not got vacated any such or similar non-residential building after the enforcement of the Act of 1949. The petitioner did not own or possess any such or similar non-residential building in the urban area of Hisar. Peti