The landlord’s bona fide requirement for property within the Haryana Rent Act is validated when supported by substantial evidence about dilapidated conditions and genuine business intentions.

JUDGMENT :

MANDEEP PANNU J.

1. The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner-tenant challenging the concurrent findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller, Jind vide order dated 31.05.2023 and by the learned Appellate Authority, Jind, vide order dated 23.09.2025, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner–tenant was dismissed and the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller was upheld.

Brief Facts

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent in the present revision petition (petitioner–landlord before the Rent Controller) filed a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 seeking eviction of the tenants from a shop situated opposite Old Bus Stand, near Manju Hotel, Jind. According to the landlord, the shop was initially let out in the year 1992 to one Shri Chabil Dass at a monthly rent of Rs. 300/–. Upon his death, his son Subhash continued in occupation as a legal heir. After Subhash also passed away, the present tenants stepped into possession of the shop, and the current rate of rent is Rs. 560/– per month. The allegation of the landlord is that the tenants are in arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.01.2007, and therefore, eviction is sought on the ground of non-payment.

3. It is further the case of the landlord that the shop in question is extremely old and has become dilapidated, with several cracks developing in the structure. The landlord has also pleaded bona fide requirement, asserting that he requires the premises for his son Rahul Mittal, who intends to start a hotel and restaurant business. The landlord owns five shops in total, one of which is in his own possession while the other four are with different tenants, and separate eviction petitions have been filed against each of them. The landlord proposes to vacate all five shops and reconstruct a new building over the entire 315 square yards for running the proposed hotel and restaurant business. He has further pleaded that his son Rahul has acquired experience in hotel management from Hotel Pelican, Ghaziabad and has no other business at present. The landlord claims to have requested the tenants to vacate the premises but without success, leading to the filing of the present eviction petition.

4. Upon notice, the tenants appeared and filed a joint written statement raising several preliminary objections. They contended that they have no alternative accommodation for their livelihood and that the petition is false, frivolous and filed without any bona fide requirement. The tenants also alleged that the ground of non-payment is not available to the landlord as they had already deposited/paid rent on 23.01.2017. They denied that the shop is damaged or unfit for use and claimed that they are running their business smoothly in the premises. It was further pleaded that the landlord’s son Rahul Mittal is already self- employed, married and residing in Delhi, where he is allegedly running an industry related to shoe manufacturing. The tenants alleged that the landlord had concealed ownership of several other commercial properties in Jind, and that two shops had been recently transferred to the landlord’s son Bhaskar Mittal and to his brother Sushil Kumar only to create a false ground of need. They also denied the feasibility of constructing a hotel on 315 square yards and asserted that the petition is devoid of merit.

5. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues:

1. Whether the petitioner (landlord) is entitled to the ejectment of th