JUDGMENT

Deepak Gupta, J.

This is tenant's revision against the order dated 31.07.2024 passed by Ld. Appellate Authority, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner-tenant against the ejectment order dated 17.08.2022 passed by learned Rent Controller.

2.1 Petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 was filed by the landlord-Sanjeev Kumar (respondent herein) for eviction of the tenant (petitioner herein) from the demised premises on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent and bona fide necessity. The tenant i.e. (petitioner herein) denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. He further disputed the bona fide necessity and claimed that rent had already been paid.

2.2 Necessary issues were framed. Evidence produced by parties were taken on record. Learned Rent Controller vide order dated 17.08.2022 found that there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The arrears of rent as assessed by the Rent Controller were already paid and as such, said ground was found to be no longer available to the landlord. Ejectment was allowed on the ground of bona fide necessity.

2.3 The order of the Rent Controller has been upheld by the Appellate Authority.

3. Assailing the order, it is contended by learned counsel that the tenant i.e. (petitioner herein) is in possession of the demised house for the last more than 40 years; that he is a poor person and will be put to great hardship, in case the ejectment order is implemented. Learned counsel also seeks period of two years to the petitioner-tenant so as to vacate the premises. It is also inter alia pleaded that the landlord i.e. (respondent herein) is having other properties in his possession and, therefore, he does not have any pressing bona fide necessity.

4. After hearing of learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant, this Court does not find any merit in this petition.

5. It was admitted by the tenant before the Courts below that he was a tenant under the previous owner-Chaman Lal. The landlord-Sanjeev Kumar i.e. (respondent herein) had purchased the demised property from the previous owner vide registered sale deed dated 18.05.2016. Learned Appellate Authority has rightly observed that in view of Sections 8 and 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, the landlord had stepped into the shoes of the vendor and so, became the landlord of the tenant, by also placing reliance upon Santosh Chaturvedi Vs. Kailash Chandra & Another, 2020 (1) Apex Court Judgments 405 (SC).

6. Abovesaid finding has not even been assailed by the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court.

7. As far as ground of bona fide necessity is concerned, it has been found by the Courts below that petitioner is presently residing in House No.359, Vishwakarma Mohalla, which is a small house measuring 72 sq yards, along with his cousin brother-Inderjeet. It is further found that demised property, which is a house measuring 71.66 sq yards, is almost equal to the property, in which the petitioner and Inderjeet are presently residing. As per the family settlement amongst the landlord and his cousin brother, the demised property came to the share of the landlord, whereas House No. 359 in which petitioner along with Inderjeet is now residing, came to the share of Inderjeet. It has been found further that the premises of house N: 359, in which petitioner along with Inderjeet is now residing, is insufficient to accommodate family of both the cousins. Tenant is nobody to dictate his terms to the landlord as to how he should adjust himself.

8. Apart from above, this court in CR No.3388 of 2024 (O&M) titled Satish Kumar Soni through his LRs VS. Dimpy Malhotra and another (decided on 23.09.2024) referred to legal position explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajit Singh and another Vs. Jeet Ram and another, 2008(4) RCR (Civil) 390; Daya Rani vs. Shabber Ahmed, 2019 (2) RCR (Rent) 365; and Vaneet Jain Vs. Jagjeet Singh, 2000(5) SCC 137 and then held as under:

'The legal position