JUDGMENT :

Vikas Bahl, J.

Challenge in the present revision petition is to the judgment dated 23.02.2018, vide which the petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to be as 'Act of 1973'), filed by the respondent-landlord, has been allowed and the eviction of the present petitioner from the house in question has been ordered. Challenge is also to the judgment dated 31.08.2024 vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner through his legal representatives has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the impugned judgments by raising four submissions. The first ground of challenge is that at the time of filing of the petition i.e. on 22.04.2015, the respondent-landlord had stated that in the residence at House No. 160, Model Colony at Yamuna Nagar, where he is residing with his son, was to be exclusively used by his son and his daughter-in-law and son of the respondent-landlord was also maintaining his separate godown near the said house in Model Colony, Yamuna Nagar for his business. It is submitted stated that however during the course of cross-examination, the said respondent-landlord/Tilak Raj had admitted that after the filing of the petition he had shifted the godown in the month of September to the house in question at Model Colony, Yamuna Nagar. It is submitted that the same was done in order to make out a case for eviction and the same shows malafide on the part of the respondent-landlord.

3. The second ground of challenge raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is to the effect that the respondent-landlord and his wife have other property and thus, the requirement of the respondent-landlord is not bona fide. It is stated that wife of the respondent-landlord Neelam Rani was the owner of plot number 180, Model Colony, Yamuna Nagar-Jagadhri and in order to prima facie shows the said fact, a reference was made to Ex.R-12, which was the document issued by the Municipal Corporation, Yamunanagar-Jagadhri on 09.11.2016, showing that the said Neelam Rani was the owner of the said property. It is stated that the said Neelam Rani had transferred the said plot in favour of her daughter-in-law Sandhya Jolly on 13.09.2017 and for the said purpose, the petitioners have referred to Ex.R2. The copies of both the said documents although have not been annexed with the present petition but have been shown to this Court during the course of arguments.

4. The third ground of challenge raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is to the effect that the respondent-landlord had earlier filed an eviction petition in the year 2003 for eviction of the present petitioner from the premises in question on the ground of personal necessity of his son and the said eviction petition was dismissed on 26.09.2007 and even the appeal from the same was dismissed on 31.03.2009. It is submitted that the respondent-landlord is thus estopped/barred by the principle of res judicata from filing the present revision petition and it also shows that the same is not filed bona fide.

5. The fourth ground of challenge in the present case is that the premises in question is 10' x 12' and the total area of the house in question is 35 sq. ft and thus, is a very small house and it is not possible that the respondent-landlord, who is residing alongwith his son in House No. 160, Model Colony, Yamunanagar, which is 200 sq. yards, would shift to a small house and the present petition has been filed only to seek enhancement of rent. It is submitted that on the said grounds, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the petition filed by the respondent-landlord for eviction deserves to be dismissed.

6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioners and has perused the paper-book and finds that the impugned judgments are in accordance with law, deserve to the upheld and the present revision petition being meritless, deserves to be dismissed for the reasons detailed here