J.V. Gupta. J. - (1.) The tenant-petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority dated Jan. 16, 1976, whereby his appeal was dismissed and the order of the Rent Controller directing his ejectment was maintained.
(2.) In the application for ejectment, the landlord stated that "that it petitioner require the said quarter No 46-R bona fide for his personal use and occupation The petitioner has now other residential accommodation at Sonepat nor he has vacated any. The petitioner's son is a doctor and he wants to start his independent practice at Sonepat. The wife of the petitioner is ailing for some time no and she too requires a change of climate. The petitioner also wants to settle at Sonepat." In reply thereto the to tenant-petitioner submitted that "it is denied that the petitioner was the said quarter No. 46-R bona fide for his personal use and occupation. It is also denied that the petitioner has no other residential accommodation in Sonepat. The petitioner's son is already having a good medical practice at Delhi and he has no cause for shifting to Sonepat. It is denied that the wife of the petitioner is ailing. She does not require a change and the climate of Delhi is better than hat of Sonepat. The petitioner has no bona fide desire to settle down at Sonepat. The application is mala fide and the petitioner wants to get the premises vacated simply to let it on enhanced rent to Rs. 150. The petitioner himself admits that he is the owner of house No. 46 L. The application is mala fide" On these pleadings of the parties and the evidence on the record, both the authorities below have come to a concurrent finding that the landlord bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation.
(3.) The learned counsel for the tenant -petitioner in this revision petition has contended in the first instance that the necessary ingredients of section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1073 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) have not been complied with. According to him this revision petition is to be accepted on this ground alone. I do not find any force in this contention. The claims made in the application for ejectment and the reply thereto have been reproduced above. It is clear from there that the necessary ingredients have been pleaded and it is not open to the tenant petition now to say that the same have not been pleaded. Learned counsel them contended that there is no evidence to prove the bona fide requirement of the landlord to occupy the premises for his own use and occupation. There is no merit in this contention either rather there is no evidence in the rebuttal to the evidence produced by the landlord except the bald statement of Tek Chand Sood. Incharge Estate Office, Atlas Cycle Industries, Sonepat, who appeared as R.W. 1. It has teen observed by the Appellate Authority that "in my opinion this statement made by R.W. 1 does not demolish the basis of the personal necessity of the property in dispute." However, both the authorities below after going through the evidence on the record have come to a concurrent finding as to the bona fide requirement of the landlord and the same cannot he Interfered with in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction as no illegality therein has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner.;