Santosh Hegde, J. - (1.) Respondent-landlord had filed an eviction petition before the Court of Rent Controller, Jagadhri in the year 1979 seeking eviction of the appellant herein from the petition scheduled land situated on Jagadhri Road, Yamuna Nagar under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') claiming that the petition scheduled land is required by it for its personal use and occupation. As required under that Act it also contended that it is not occupying in the urban area of Yamuna Nagar any other rented land for the purpose of its business nor it has vacated any such rented land without sufficient cause after the commencement of the Act. It also alleged in the said petition that the premises already in its possession are not sufficient for its requirement.
(2.) Appellant-tenant opposed the said petition on a number of grounds, primarily on the ground that the petition scheduled premises was not a rented land but was a building as contemplated under the Act and he also alleged that the landlord had not given material particulars in regard to its requirement of additional space. By an amendment of his objection, the tenant further pleaded that the landlord had filed several other applications against other tenants alleging personal requirement and during the pendency of the eviction petition in question, it had obtained possession of building and land from three other tenants, hence, the landlord's claim for his eviction is not bona fide. In its rejoinder petition, the landlord admitted that it had obtained possession of three premises through eviction proceedings and the same along with petition scheduled land was required for its extension of coal yard, the foundry and for storage of foundry material like sand, earth, firewood, fire-brikcs etc. The trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration:- 1. Whether the applicant Company is a private limited company and whether Ram Avtar is competent to file the present application for ejectment OPA. 2. Whether the property in dispute is a rented land and if so its effect OPA. 3. If issues No. 2 is proved in the affirmative whether the applicant company requires the premises in dispute for its bona fide use and occupation OPA. 4. Whether the suit land is a non-residential building and as such the ground of ejectment for personal use is not available to the applicant OPP. 5. Relief. Additional issues framed on 15-10-1986:- 4-A. Whether the personal necessity of the applicant stands satisfied during the pendency of the present petition OPP.
(3.) Trial Court accepted the case of the landlord and ordered eviction of the appellant.;