JUDGMENT :

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral)

Challenge in the present revision petition is to the judgment dated 15.11.2017 vide which the petition filed by the respondent-landlord under Section 13 of the Haryana Rent Act of 1973 had been allowed by the Rent Controller, Kaithal on the ground of bona fide necessity and the petitioner had been directed to hand over the vacant possession of the tenanted premises in question within a period of two months. Challenge is also to the judgment dated 31.07.2024 vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner had been dismissed by the Appellate Authority. It would be relevant to note that in the said appeal, the cross-objections of the respondent had been allowed, however, no separate revision has been filed to challenge the same.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the observations made by the 1st Appellate Authority in para 24 of its judgment and has submitted that the rent deed dated 12.01.2000 relied upon by the landlord had been tampered with, inasmuch as, instead of 15% increase in the rent after every three years the said document contains 45% increase after every three years and has submitted that in order to prove the said interpolation, the petitioner had examined a handwriting expert Shamsher Singh Malik (RW-3) who had given the opinion that in the rent note dated 12.01.2000 there was an increase of 15% which later on was converted into 45% and the counsel for the petitioner has thus submitted that the 1st Appellate Authority had taken into consideration the said aspect and the evidence of the handwriting expert. It is submitted that since it had been prima facie found that there was interpolation done by the respondent-landlord, thus, his bona fides are questionable and, therefore, the eviction order passed on the ground of bona fide requirement in favour of the respondent-landlord is unsustainable and the impugned judgments deserves to be set aside on the said ground alone.

3. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and has perused the paper-book and is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 31.07.2024 passed by the 1st Appellate Authority is in accordance with law and deserves to be upheld and the present revision petition is meritless and deserves to be dismissed for the reasons detailed hereinafter.

4. Brief facts of the present case are that the respondent-landlord had filed an ejectment petition against the present petitioner with respect to shop bearing MCK No.340/4 bounded with specific boundaries, which was shown in red colour in the site plan. It was averred by the respondent-landlord that father of the respondent-landlord and one Madan Lal had purchased a plot measuring 61.62 sq. yards with specific boundaries and after the purchase of the said plot, the landlord's father and the said Madan Lal had raised construction in the shape of shop mark A, which was allotted MCK No.340(l)/4, and the other shop mark B was allotted 340/4 by Municipal Committee, Kaithal and as per the partition between the father of the landlord and the said Madan Lal, the shop mark A fell to the share of said Madan Lal and shop mark B fell to the share of the father of the landlord and thereafter, the said Madan Lal had sold shop mark A to the present petitioner. It was further averred that the father of the landlord, who was the owner of the premises in question, had given the shop on rent to the tenant vide rent note dated 12.01.2000 and that after the death of father of the landlord, the landlord was nominated as his legal heir vide registered Will No. 161/3 dated 07.01.2003 and thus, the present respondent became the owner and landlord of the premises in question and thus, he had locus standi to file the said ejectment petition.

5. The respondent-landlord had prayed for eviction of the present petitioner on three grounds. The first being arrears of rent which as per the case of the respondent-landlord was due to him for a period of three years prior to filing of the eje