G.R.MAJITHIA,J - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority affirming on appeal that on the Rent Controller whereby the application for eviction filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
(2.) THE facts :- The petitioner filed an application under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short the Act) for ejectment of the respondent inter alia on the ground that he was the owner of the shop in dispute. He required the demised premises for his own use since he wanted to start metal business therein. It was further pleaded that late Jai Narain, father of the petitioner, was owner of the demised premises who died in an accident on April 24, 1981 and after his death be became owner landlord of the shop in dispute and the respondent became his tenant. The eviction was sought on the ground of non-payment of rent and personal necessity. The applicant was a minor at the time of death of his father and within three years from the date of his attaining majority, he filed the application for eviction on the ground that he bona-fide required the demised premises for his own use and occupation. The respondent controverted the allegations made in the petition that the premises were bona-fide required by the petitioner. The arrears of rent along with interest and costs were tendered on the first date of hearing. Consequently, the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent ceased to exist. Before the Appellate Authority the only ground urged was that the demised premises were required by the petitioner for his own use and occupation. The Appellate Authority on appreciation of the evidence negatived the plea of the landlord that he required the demised premises for his own use and occupation I do not find any infirmity in the conclusions arrived at by the Appellate Authority. I have gone through the statement of the petitioner who appeared as AW 1 in the trial Court. He categorically stated therein that no money was lying in deposit in his name. The only inference thus deducible is that he has no funds. In the absence of funds, the need to occupy the premises for his own use is not genuine. There is no material on the record to substantiate the plea that the petitioner bona-fide required the demised premises for his own use and occupation. The element of need is missing. To me it looks that the petition has been filed with an oblique motive to evict the respondent. The revision petition is devoid of merit, it is dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.;