- (1.) Appellant herein is the landlord of the premises whereas the respondent is the tenant. The appellant filed an application before the Rent Controller under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (in Short 'the Act') for eviction of respondent-tenant on the ground of his bona fide need for the premises. The need set up by the appellant in the said application was that he is unemployed and his elder brother is carrying on business at Balasaur in Orissa and the said business is in the name of his elder brother wherein the appellant has no interest. It was also stated that he was suffering from asthma and as per medical advice coastal area is not fit for his habitation. It was further asserted that the appellant intended to carry on business of Karyana in the premises in dispute and for that purpose he deposited a sum of Rs. 45,000/- in the fixed deposit. The need set up by the landlord was denied by the tenant. However, the Rent Controller, after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the need of the landlord was bona fide and consequently, the application filed by the landlord was allowd. Aggrieved, the tenant filed an appeal before the appellate authority constituted under the Act. The Appellate Authority affirmed the decision of the Rent Controller. The tenant thereafter preferred a revision under sub-section (6) of Section 15 of the Act. The High Court recorded at a finding that the need of the appellant is not bona fide. Consequently, the revision was allowed and the order of the Court below was set aside. It is against the said judgment the landlord is in appeal before us.
(2.) Shri Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, urged that in view of the limited jurisdiction conferred upon the High Court, it was not open to the High Court to reassess and reappreciate the evidence and come to a different finding. We find merit in the submission. The Rent Controller, after considering the evidence on record, recorded a finding that the need of the landlord was bona fide. The said finding was affirmed by the appellate authority. The appellate authority recorded finding to the following effect: "10. Then bona fide requirement of the landlord for the demised shop cannot be said to be his mere wish. He, no doubt, is permanently residing with his family members in Orissa but he wants to start his business in the demised shop of Karyana food grains. Though after the institution of the petition (sic) but he has also deposited Rs. 45,000/- in the bank so as to start business in the shop. He is a commerce graduate. No doubt, he has got his name registered with the Employment Exchange for service but he has not got any service by now. So looking to his unemployment he has got every reason to start his business in the shop, which belongs to him. Though the petitioner has produced the medical certificate Mark-A and Mark-B to show that he is suffering from asthma and the climate of Balasaur, which is sea shore, is not suitable to him but even if these certificates are ignored there is no reason to hold his need to be mala fide when he has got means as well qualification to support the business."
(3.) Sub-section (6) of Section 15 of the Act confers revisional jurisdiction upon the High Court which reads as under: "The High Court, as revisional authority, may, at any time, on its own motion or on the application of any aggrieved party, made within a period of ninety days, call for and examine the record relating to any order passed or proceedings taken under this Act for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of such order or proceedings and may pass such order in relation thereto as it may deem fit. In computing the period of ninety days the time taken to obtain a certified copy of the order shall be excluded." ;