- (1.) Harjinder Singh Dua landlord filed an application under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, seeking ejectment of the respondent from shop no.3, which is part of house No.513-L Paras Ram Chowk, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar. The revision petitioner who is tenant in that shop moved application seeking amendment of written statement by incorporating para 5 as follows: "5. That the shop in dispute is not required by the applicant/landlord for the alleged necessity of his son. The applicant/landlord vide sale-deed dated 14.1.13 sold his house situated near the shop in dispute and also sold the shop in his possession vide sale-deed dated 1.3.13. After selling the house and shop the applicant/landlord purchased a shop situated near Khalsa College, Yamuna Nagar vide sale-deed dated 4.3.14 in the name of his wife Smt. Sita Rani Dua. The shop purchased vide sale-deed dated 4.3.13 is now occupied by the son of the applicant/landlord Kanwaljit Dua who is running his business of Photography in that shop in the name of Dua Digital Studio. The applicant wants to get the shop in dispute vacated for necessity of his son to run the business of photography therein but his son is already running the business of photography in the shop purchased vide sale-deed dated 4.3.13. As such it is absolutely incorrect that the landlord/applicant requires the shop in dispute for his son to run the business of photography. The application for ejectment is false and frivolous and is liable to be dismissed on this ground also."
(2.) The application was declined by learned Rent Controller, Jagadhari on the ground that applicant-petitioner had not acted with due diligence during the trial and cannot be allowed to raise a new plea at this phase of the trial.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the paper book.;