Under the Rent Control legislation, the bar on eviction pertains only to the 'occupation' of other residential or commercial buildings. Ownership of other property that is not in the landlord's occupation does not amount to concealment of material facts, nor does it invalidate a claim of bonafide requirement.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the tenant against the concurrent judgments of the learned Courts below; whereby the Eviction Petition filed by the respondent/landlord has been allowed by both the Courts below.

2. Brief facts of the case in chronological order are as follows: -

19.11.2014: On 19.11.2014, respondent/landlord had filed Eviction Petition (Annexure P-1), under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), seeking ejectment of petitioner from the demised premises on grounds of: (a) arrears of rent; and (b) bonafide necessity.

15.05.2015: Petitioner had filed written statement dated 15.05.2015 (Annexure P-2), to the said Rent Petition.

28.07.2015: Respondent filed replication dated 28.07.2015 (Annexure P-3).

13.10.2016: Vide judgment dated 13.10.2016, learned Rent Controller Karnal had allowed the aforesaid Ejectment Petition as follows: -

“13 In view of my above discussion on issue no.1, petition stands allowed with costs. Respondent is directed to vacate the shop in question within period of two months from the date of this judgment. Respondent is also directed to the pay the rent @ 1886/- per month w.e.f. 19/11/2011 till 02/03/2012, 2075/- per month w.e.f. 03/03/2012 till 02/03/2014 and 2282/- per month w.e.f 03/03/2014, electricity bill and other charges of shop till the vacation of the shop in question, subject to the adjustment of the rent previously paid by the respondent during the pendency of the petition. Memo of costs be prepared and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.”

12.11.2016: Against the order dated 13.10.2016, petitioner/tenant had filed a Rent Appeal dated 12.11.2016 (at Pages 39 to 49 of the paperbook).

12.09.2022: Vide judgment dated 12.09.2022, the Rent Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed with costs by the ld. Appellate Authority, Karnal.

3. Hence, present Revision Petition.

4. The primary ground urged by learned counsel for the petitioner laying challenge to the impugned judgments is that originally respondent was owner of 7 shops situated in the said house No.301-R; out of which he had recently sold 4 frontal shops, for a sum of Rs.80 lacs. It is contended that however, this fact was not mentioned by the respondent in the Rent Petition. Therefore, respondent had concealed material facts. Thus, need of the respondent was not genuine or bonafide. It is contended that Respondent in his replication has sought to cover his tracks and explain the sales by stating that he needed finances for the medical treatment of his wife, who was diagnosed with cancer in the year 2010. However, the said sales had been made by the respondent in 2013. Therefore, explanation given by the respondent is not satisfactory. Clearly therefore, respondent had concealed the material facts in the Rent Petition that he was in ownership of other premises prior to filing of Rent Petition.

5. It is further submitted that a bare perusal of the ejectment petition filed by the respondent/landlord would show that the provisions of the Act of 1973 had not been complied with as the respondent has failed to mention whether he has vacated any premises without any sufficient cause or reason after the commencement of the Act of 1973. Further, the respondent/landlord has failed to disclose the number of properties occupied by or got vacated by him. The ejectment petition itself is bad for non-compliance of the Act of 1973 and thus deserved