- (1.) Suresh Kumar, one of the three tenants, has filed this revision petition under section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (in short, the Act), having lost before both the Authorities below. Respondent No. 1 Nathu Ram landlord filed two ejectment petitions under section 13 of the Act against petitioner herein and his brother Naresh Kumar and sister Usha (proforma respondents No. 2 and 3 herein). In ejectment petition No. 3 of 2008, ejectment was sought on three grounds i.e. non-payment of rent, bonafide necessity of the demised shop for business of landlord's son Gulshan and also that the shop has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. In the second ejectment petition No. 18 of 2010, ejectment was sought on ground of non-payment of rent for subsequent period. However, in the instant revision petition, bonafide requirement of the demised shop for business of landlord's son Gulshan is in issue. Para 3(b) of the ejectment petition detailing the necessity of the demised shop for son of the landlord is reproduced herein under:- (b) That the petitioner requires the demised premises for bonafide need of his son Gulshan, aged 33 years, who is already running a Sanitary Shop adjoining the demised shop and which is of the size 11' x 22' but is not sufficient for running the Sanitary Shop. The pipes placed in the Sanitary business are very long and the water tanks etc. are very bulky. The area in occupation of Gulshan is quite insufficient for running that business, so the petitioner and his son Gulshan intends to demolish the intervening walls of the demised shop and convert the two shops and gallery in shop which would naturally be bigger in sizes and sufficient to run the Sanitary Business properly. It may be stated that the shop now in occupation of Gulshan was got vacated from its previous tenant in 1991 after getting an eviction decree from the Court. Thus, the petitioner requires the demised shop for his personal bonafide necessity i.e. the expansion of the shop of his son as described above. The demised shop is the only shop that can be joined in the existing shop of Gulshan. The petitioner has not vacated any premises after the commencement of the 1949 Act.
(2.) The tenancy was initially created in favour of Tarsem Chand father of petitioner and proforma respondents No. 2 and 3 herein and now they are the tenants.
(3.) The tenants in their reply controverted the averments of the landlord while admitting the tenancy. Corresponding paragraph No. 3(b) of the written reply filed on behalf of the petitioner herein is reproduced hereinunder:- (b) Sub-para 3(b) of petition is wrong hence, denied. The petitioner do not require the demised premises for the alleged bonafide need of his son Gulshan. The premises in his possession in which he is running the business are sufficient for his business. The intention to demolish the intervening walls and to convert the two shops and gallery in one shop is not bonafide and necessary. The petitioner do not require the demised premises for his personal bonafide necessity or extension of the shop of his son. It is incorrect that the demised shop is the only shop that can be joined in the existing shop of Gulshan. It is also incorrect that the petitioner has not vacated any premises after commencement of 1949 Act. In fact, Gulshan son of petitioner is owner in possession of two shops at Patiala Chowk, Jind. The front of the shop is about 2-' and about 50' deep. Both the shops are lying vacant. Gulshan Kumar got the shops on 20.4.2005.;