JUDGMENT :

Archana Puri, J.

1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitionertenant to assail the judgment dated 29.04.2023 passed by learned Appellate Authority, whereby, an appeal filed by the respondent-landlord to challenge the order of dismissal of the eviction petition dated 02.09.2022 passed by learned Rent Controller, was allowed and eviction of the petitioner-tenant was ordered.

2. For the convenience of discussion, the parties are referred to as petitioner and respondent, as making appearance before learned Rent Controller.

3. The facts germane, to be noticed, are as follows:-

4. That, Gaurav Adlakha, while asserting himself to be one of the landlord/owner of shop No. 3, measuring 11ft. 21 ft. (25.66. square yards), had filed a petition to seek eviction of Subhash Chand-tenant.

5. It was asserted that earlier Smt.Kheri Bai, wife of late Sh.Sobha Ram was owner of plot No. 2A/12 B.P. NIT Faridabad, area measuring 640 square yards, by virtue of sale deed No. 328 dated 20.08.1962, duly registered with Sub-Registrar, Ballabhgarh. The demised shop was let out to respondent (Subhash Chand), under the agreement dated 19.11.2007 by one of the co-owner, namely Sanjay Adhlakha, real uncle of petitioner (Gaurav Adlakha). Smt.Kheri Bai, during her lifetime, had executed a Will, in favour of petitioner, his brother and uncle Sanjay Adhlakha. By virtue of this Will, it was clarified that shop No. 4 was given to Sanjay Adlakha in the year 1980 and rest of the building is in the name of Smt.Kheri Bai. Smt.Kheri Bai had bequeathed the whole property No. 2A/12 B.P. NIT Faridabad, except shop No. 4, comprising of 11 shops, basement, ground floor, halls and guest house at first floor and second floor, after her death, to her son Sanjay Adlakha to the extent of half share and to her grandsons i.e. petitioner and Samar Adlakha, to the extent of 1/4th share each. Smt.Kheri Bai had died on 20.01.2002. After her death, the property devolved upon petitioner as well as Samar Adlakha and Sanjay Adlakha. Petitioner is graduate and he intends to start a business of curtains and bed-sheets. The shop in question is best and ideal accommodation for the petitioner to run the business. The other co-sharers have also consented for running the business of curtains and bed-sheets, in the said shop. Also, it was averred that the respondent is paying the rent to petitioner, Samar Adlakha and Sanjay Adlakha, as per their shares. The petitioner is not having much income to run his livelihood. He is married and not able to earn as much income, to maintain his family in proper manner. He intends to start his own business of curtains and bedsheets and the shop in question is the ideal accommodation, to start the said business.

6. Also, it was averred that petitioner, Samar Adlakha and Sanjay Adlakha, were given total area of 640 sq. yards. Some shops were also constructed behind the demised premises, but the portion other than shops No. 1 to 5, was demolished by Municipal Corporation, Faridabad and is lying vacant. Hence, the eviction petition was filed.

7. In reply, respondent-Subhash raised various preliminary objections, thereby, disputing the locus standi, to file the eviction petition and also disputed the maintainability of the petition in the present form. That the petitioner has no cause of action and the petition is malafide. In fact, the respondent had asserted that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent. In fact, shop No. 3, forming part of plot No. 2A/12 B.P. NIT Faridabad, was let out to the respondent by Sanjay Adlakha, vide lease agreement dated 19.11.2007 and he has been making regular payment of rent amount to Sanjay Adlakha, since the date of inception of tenancy. On merits, it was asserted about there to be no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent. In fact, it was denied that the petitioner is one of the landlord/owner, in respect of the shop in questio