YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral)

1. This revision petition is directed against the concurrent findings of the learned Rent Controller, Karnal and the First Appellate Authority, Karnal vide which the petitioner/tenant (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondent’) has been ordered to be evicted from the demised premises in a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), instituted by the respondent/landlord (hereinafter referred to as ‘petitioner’) in Rent Petition No.38 of 2015 titled "Sudesh Rani Vs. Lajpat Rai", vide judgments dated 25.03.2022 and 09.12.2025 respectively.

2. Case of petitioner-landlord is that she is the owner-cum-landlord of booth/shop No.150, Sector-6, Karnal as detailed in para No.1 of the petition (hereinafter referred to as demised premises). She purchased the property from one Ajmer Singh who had purchased the same from one Santosh Kumari on the basis of full payment agreement to sell dated 03.05.2013. One of the stipulation in the agreement to sell was that said Ajmer Singh was at liberty to get the sale deed executed and registered in favour of any person of his choice. On the basis of said agreement, he executed the sale deed dated 19.08.2013 in favour of petitioner and she became owner of the demised premises.

3. It is further submitted that respondent-tenant filed one suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, titled, ‘Lajpat Rai Vs. Santosh Kumari & Anr.’, against his forcible dispossession by said Santosh Kumari. The Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal passed an order for restoration of his possession and on the basis of said order, respondent tried to take possession of the demised shop from petitioner and thereafter, petitioner came to know that some litigation was pending between respondent and previous owner, namely, Santosh Kumari. In the same suit, petitioner also moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which was allowed. However, the Court directed owner of the demised premises to handover the possession of the demised shop to respondent/tenant and thereafter, she handed over the possession to him. It is further submitted that after having purchased the demised premises, she has become owner-cum-landlord of the same. After 09.03.2015 when respondent had taken over the possession of the shop in question back, petitioner approached him and demanded the rent @ Rs.5,000/- per month. Initially, respondent agreed to pay the rent to her but later on, he refused and now he is in arrears of rent from 09.03.2015 to 08.05.2015 @ Rs.5,000/- per month, which is the rent prevailing in the locality. It is further submitted that now she requires the same for her bonafide personal necessity for starting the business of sale of mobile phones for her husband to earn their livelihood. The elder son of petitioner, namely, Sunil Kumar has already got him separated from the joint family about 10 years ago. Said Sunil Kumar is running a chemist shop in another shop owned by petitioner. With these averments, eviction of the respondent/tenant was sought on the ground of bonafide personal necessity of the husband of the petitioner and for non-payment of rent.

4. Respondent in his written statement challenged the petition preliminarily on the grounds of maintainability, locus standi, cause of action and suppression of true facts. It is submitted that petitioner never inducted respondent as tenant in the demised premises and infact, he was inducted as a tenant in November, 1998, by Smt. Santosh Kumari and respondent had been paying the rent to her. The rate of rent was Rs.1,200/- per month and subsequently, it was increased from time to time and presently, the rate of rent is Rs.2,000/- per month. Respondent thus denied the relationship of landlord and tenant with the petitioner. It is further submitted that vide order dated 21.01.2015, Court of Civil Judge (Junior Divi