JUDGMENT :

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.

1. By way of the instant judgment, this Court proposes to decide the afore-titled revision petitions. Since the issue involved in both revision petitions is the same, they are being decided by way of this common judgment. Facts shall essentially be derived from CR-947-2016, though reference to the facts out of CR-7225-2017 shall duly be given wherever necessary.

2. The petitioner-landlord (Sanatan Dharam Mandir) instituted eviction petitions against its tenants, namely, Satish Kumar and Rajiv Kumar, under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short ‘the Rent Act’), for their eviction from two shops, each of the tenants being in occupation of one shop [fully described in the eviction petition(s)], situated at Railway Road, Narwana (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the demised premises’).

3. In Satish Kumar’s case, the case set up was that Satish Kumar had taken the demised premises on rent and had initially been running a shop in the name and style of Goyal Radios. The rate of rent was claimed to be Rs.1,700/- per month. It was alleged that he had been in arrears of rent since 01.05.2012 and had sublet the demised premises to one Amit Kumar (respondent No.2 in the eviction petition), who was an Advocate carrying on the practice of taxation. It was further claimed that the demised premises was bonafidely required by the petitioner-landlord for widening the main gate of the Temple. It was pleaded that since Sanatan Dharam Mandir was situated in a very busy market and several functions were being held there, it was necessary to widen the main gate. It was averred that since the demised premises abutted the main gate, eviction was being sought.

4. In Rajiv Kumar’s case, the rate of rent was claimed to Rs.1,250/- per month, and he was claimed to be carrying on the business of a general store. He was also claimed to be in arrears of rent since 01.05.2012. The ground of subletting was not raised in that case, but the ground of the demised premises being bonafidely required for widening the main gate was raised.

5. The respondents-tenants admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant but denied all other averments, including the ground of subletting and the requirement of the demised premises for widening the main gate.

6. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Rent Controller:-

“1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to decree for eviction on the grounds mentioned in the petition? OPP.

2. Whether petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPD.

3. Relief.”

7. Parties led their respective evidence.

8. In Satish Kumar’s case, the grounds of non-payment of rent and subletting were given up and only the ground of the demised premises being bona fide required was pressed. Similarly, in Rajiv Kumar’s case, the ground of arrears of rent was given up and only the ground of bona fide necessity was pressed.

9. The Court of Rent Controller, Jind, dismissed the eviction petitions, as a result of which appeals were filed which too were dismissed by the Appellate Authority, leading to the filing of the instant revision petitions.

10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

11. Learned Senior counsel representing the petitioner-landlord has submitted that both Courts have gravely erred in dismissing the eviction petition(s). It has been submitted that both Courts decided the issue on the basis of conjectures and surmises. It has further been argued that the landlord is the best judge of his requirements and that it is for the landlord to decide in what manner the property is to be used.

11.1 While referring to the site plan, learned Senior counsel has asserted that the main gate of the Temple is only 6 feet wide and needs to be widened, as over the years, the area where the Temple is situated has become congested. It has further been submitted that the number of devotees, who visit the Temple, has increased manifold and that many big functions are he