Surinder Gupta, J. - (1.) RESPONDENT Mulkraj Kumar filed petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 seeking ejectment of the revision petitioners from the tenanted premises which comprised of a shop measuring 9 feet X 13 Â 1/2 feet forming part of house bearing No. 1 -B/169, NIT Faridabad District Faridabad on the ground of non -payment of rent from 01.10.2008 to 30.09.2011, subletting and personal bona fide necessity.
(2.) AS per the respondent -landlord, the shop was let out to petitioner No. 1 who has further sublet the same to respondent No. 2 in the year 1999 without his written consent and permission. Now, respondent No. 2 is doing the business in the tenanted premises under the name and style of Gautam Cloth House and Modman Tailors. Respondent also projected his personal bona fide necessity for the demised premises inter alia pleading in para 9(ii) of the petition, which reads as follows: - (ii) That the petitioner is absolutely un -employed and job less person being retired person from Armed Forces of Union of India, Ministry of Defence, Army Head Quarters, New Delhi and hence he wants to do some his own business over the shop in question for his livelihood. Thus there is bona fide requirement of the petitioner of the shop in question.  The revision petitioners paid the rent up to first of September, 2011, denied the plea of subletting raised by the respondent -landlord inter -alia pleading that revision petitioner No. 1 is carrying on his business in the demised premises under the name and style of Gautam Cloth House and Modman Tailors. The personal bona fide necessity for the demised premises projected by the landlord was also denied.
(3.) PLEADINGS of the parties led to the framing of issues as follows: - (1) Whether the respondents are in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.10.2008 to 30.09.2011 ?OPP (2) Whether the respondent no. 1 has further let out the premises in question to respondent no. 2 without the consent of the petitioner ?OPP (3) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the premises in question vacated on the ground that he is an unemployed retired person from the Armed force and requires the shop in question for bonafide need ?OPD (4) Whether the petitioner has no locus standi and no cause of action to file the present petition ?OPR (5) Relief.;