- (1.) RESPONDENT had filed petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (in short 'Act) seeking ejectment of the petitioner on the grounds of nonpayment of rent; that the shop was lying closed for the last three years and had been rendered unfit and unsafe for human habitation and was required by the landlord for his personal use and occupation.
(2.) PETITIONER in his written statement admitted the relationship of landlord -tenant between the parties. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: - 1.Whether the petitioner is owner/landlord of the tenanted premises ? OPP. 2.Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected from the tenanted premises on the grounds of arrears of rent? OPP. 3.Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected from the tenanted premises on the grounds of personal necessity? OPP. 4.Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected from the tenanted premises on the ground that the tenanted premises has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation? OPP. 5.Whether the respondent has diminished the value and utility of the tenanted premises? OPP. 6.Whether the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition? OPR. 7.Whether the present petition is bad for non -joinder of necessary parties? OPR. 8.Relief.
(3.) THE Rent Controller vide its order dated 08.08.2011 ordered the ejectment of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has ceased to occupy the premises in question and the same was required for his personal use. The said order was upheld by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 12.09.2013. Hence, the present appeal by the petitioner -tenant. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record available on the file carefully. Case of the landlord was that he was unemployed and required the premises in question for his own use as he wanted to start his business in the shop in dispute. Although, the landlord was having three other shops but had sought ejectment of the petitioner. During the course of arguments, it has transpired that the other three shops had also been rented out by the landlord. It was for the landlord to have decided as to in which shop he wanted to run his business, as it is a settled proposition of law that the landlord is the best judge qua his needs. The tenant could not dictate terms to the landlord as to in which shop he should run his business. Since the landlord had categorically stated that he required the premises in question for his personal use and occupation, as he wanted to start the business in the said premises, the Courts below rightly held that the petitioner was liable to be ejected on the ground of personal necessity. There was no occasion to doubt the personal necessity of the landlord. Moreover, as per Section 13 of the Act, protection has been given to the tenant that in case the landlord fails to occupy the premises in question within the stipulated period or rents out the same to another tenant, then evicted tenant can apply for restoration of possession to the Rent Controller. The next ground for ejectment was that the premises in question was lying closed for the last three years. In this regard, it was established on record that there was no electricity connection in the premises in question as it had been disconnected long back. Although, the case of the tenant was that he was running business in the shop from 10.30 a.m. to 8.00 p.m. Since the tenant had made no effort for restoration of electricity connection, the Courts below rightly held that it was evidence that the shop in question was lying closed. Moreover, as per the report of the Local Commissioner, the shop in question was lying closed.;