J.S.NARANG, J. - (1.) THE landlord filed a petition under section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for eviction of Om Parkash i.e. tenant from the demised premises reflected in red colour and delineated as ABCD in the site plan Ex. PA/1, situated at Mohalla Rampura Dadar, Hansi District Hisar. It is alleged that the tenancy was created in favour of the respondent at a monthly rent of Rs. 25/-. The eviction has been asked for on three grounds i.e. (1) he has not paid rent since July 1, 1987; (2) the demised premises are bonafidely required for the use and occupation of the petitioner i.e. the landlord; and (3) that the building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation.
(2.) ADDITIONALLY it was been averred that the respondent owns two houses and one vacant plot. Petitioner-respondent No. 1 Smt. Phullan Devi widow of Chhotu Ram has averred that she is living in village Kharkhoda District Sonipat, with his brother and that her family has grown in age and the children have become of marriageable age. Since she is living at the sufferance of her brother and that she needs the premises herself, her need is bonafide for seeking the eviction of the tenant, and for using the premises for herself and her family. So far as the building being unsafe and unfit for human habitation is concerned, it has been pleaded that the house is in a dilapidated condition. It has kutcha floor and kutcha roof and that the walls have developed cracks, resultantly, is unsafe to remain in occupation. The petition has been contested by the respondent-petitioner i.e. tenant and has controverted all the pleas of the landlord. It is stated that the rent has been tendered with effect from July 1, 1987 to June 13, 1988 under protest and a right is being claimed that the rent stood paid earlier but no receipt was issued, therefore, he is entitled to seek the refund of the rent tendered in Court. It has been emphatically denied so far as the status of the demised premises is concerned. Similarly, the personal necessity of the petitioner-respondent has been contested. Upon the pleadings of the parties, the issues had been struck and the respective documentary and oral evidence in support of their pleadings, to prove the issues, has been brought on record. The Rent Controller has categorically held that the rent tendered in Court is not liable to be refunded as no evidence in this regard has been produced by the respondent-petitioner. So far as personal necessity is concerned, the finding has been returned against the petitioner-respondent on the premises that there is a prima facie effort of the landlord to sell the demised premises and this would negate the bona fide requirement of the petitioner-respondent. It has been further held that the premises cannot be held to be unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The cumulative effect is that the petition has been dismissed by the Rent Controller vide order dated 28.3.1992.
(3.) THE aforesaid judgment has been further challenged by the landlord before the Appellate Authority. The appeal has been accepted by reversing the finding in respect of personal bona fide necessity of the petitioner- respondent No. 1. Resultantly, the finding on issue No. 2 of the Rent Controller has been reversed so far as it relates to the personal necessity of the landlord is concerned. On all other issue, the finding wherever it affected the landlord has been reversed and wherever it is in favour of the tenant without jeopardising the right of the landlord in respect of eviction has been affirmed.;