JUDGMENT :

Ritu Tagore, J. 

1. This is landlords-petitioners' revision-petition, against the order dated 26.10.2017, passed by the learned Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge), Jhajjar, in Rent Appeal No. 36 of 2017, dismissing the Rent petition No RBT-3 of 2011/2016, titled 'Suresh Kumar @ Suresh Chander and another vs. Jeet Ram and others'by overturning the order of ejectment dated 06.03.2017, passed by the learned Rent Controller, Bahadurgarh.

2. For easy reference, the parties to the lis, hereinafter, shall be referred to by their original status in the petition.

3. The relevant facts necessary for adjudication of this revision are as under:

The petitioners instituted a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as '1973 Act'), seeking eviction of the respondents from the demised premises i.e. Shop No. 25 measuring 153 Sq.Yards, marked with letters AFGI out of 555 Sq. Yards, situated at Anaj Mandi Bahadurgarh, within the MC of Bahadurgarh Town, Tehsil, Bahadurgarh, fully depicted in the site plan attached and detailed in the headnote of the petition, by pleading that in an oral family settlement between petitioner No. 1 and his brother Sat Prakash, the shop No. 25 fell to the share of petitioner No. 2 and her share was transferred in her name vide registered sale deed No. 3713 dated 03.03.1992. Since then, the petitioners are residing on first floor of shop No. 25.

4. Petitioners averred that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The premises in question was rent out to respondent No. 1 in the year 1967 for commercial purposes at rate of Rs.1100 per annum and prevalent rate of rent of the demised shop is Rs. 2600 per annum, which was enhanced in year 2000.

5. The petitioners sought the eviction of the respondents on the grounds of bona-fide personal necessity for the settlement of their sons in their separate business, non-payment of rent and impairment of the value and utility of the demised shop by the respondents by erecting a 4 feet high pucca wall from point EO without their permission. The petitioners pleaded that the demised premises is required for running the business of Kariyana, Adhat and Khal Binola (cattle feed) for their sons, namely, Ashu and Rajat Aggarwal. Their sons are trained shopkeepers and can start the business. They do not have any other suitable building/premises for this purpose except the disputed shop, even the petitioners and their sons are residing on the first floor of the shop.

6. The petitioners further pleaded that they have not vacated any such building without any sufficient cause after the commencement of the Act in 1949 in the urban area of Bahadurgarh Town. Respondents are in possession of part of the shop as detailed in the site plan and in remaining part, petitioner No. 1 is running his business. There is no other commercial property in the possession of the petitioners.

7. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, they did not dispute their relationship, however, denied the grounds of ejectment by alleging that petitioners do not require the premises for their use and occupation as alleged. They have other several properties in their occupation and use, where the sons of the petitioners are doing their business. The petitioners have concealed these material facts. Ashu, elder son of petitioners, is carrying on the business of rice, sugar etc. in Shop No. 25 and is paying income tax. There is no bona-fide necessity of the petitioners.

8. The petitioners, in their replication, submitted that their son, namely, Ashu is doing the business of selling sugar only and due to lack of space, is unable to do his business independently and denied that the remaining part of the demised premises is in possession of their son.

9. Since parties were at variance, learned rent Controller framed the following issues:

1. Whether their exist relationship of land-lord and tenant betwee