ASHOK BHAN, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition filed by the petitioner arises from the following facts:2. Munna Lal landlord, now deceased (hereinafter referred to as die landlord) and represented through his legal representatives filed an ejectment application under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act No. 11 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for vacation of House No. 4853/1, Mochi Mandi, Ambala Cantt, which was let out to the tenant 25 years back. The house consists of four rooms out of which two have been let out to the tenant-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) and the remaining two are with the landlord. Ejectment is sought on the ground of personal necessity as he has left his job in Dehradun and wants to settle at his native place at Ambala and for the! need of his married sons.
(2.) LANDLORD has six children, all married having further children. Tenant in the written statement has alleged that earlier two petitions were filed by the landlord in the year 1977 and 1981 on the ground of personal necessity which already stand dismissed and the present petition on the same ground of personal necessity is barred by the principles of res judicata. Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority have accepted the plea of the landlord and held that earlier two petitions for ejectment were for the bone fide requirement of the sons of the landlord but the present petition was filed on the plea that the landlord himself required the premises in dispute for his personal use and occupation as well as the use of his married sons. The cause of action for changed circumstances, the third petition on the ground of personal necessity was maintainable. Position of law is well settled. Subsequent applications for ejectment on the ground of personal necessity are not barred if there is a change in the circumstances. Both the courts below have found that in the earlier petitioners, there was no allegation that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation. It has further been found that the landlord has left the job in Dehradun and was living in a tent opposite the house in dispute there being no accommodation in the main building. The tenant while appearing in the witness box admitted this allegation that the landlord was living in a tented accommodation. Earlier, two petitions filed on the ground of personal necessity of married sons of the landlord were dismissed. Present petition has been filed on the ground that the landlord required the premises in dispute for his personal occupation as well. Landlord has six sons who have further children. Accommodation of two rooms is insufficient for his needs. No exception can be taken to the finding recorded by the Courts below. There is no merit in this petition which is ordered to be dismissed. No costs.
(3.) AS an interim measure this Court had ordered while granting stay to the tenant that he should deposit yearly rent. The tenant has deposited rent upto 31. 12. 1994. Tenant is granted time upto 31. 10. 1994 to vacate the premises and hand over the vacant possession of the same to the landlord. Landlord is directed to refund the rent for the months of November and December 1994 deposited by the tenant if he has already realised the amount. If the trial Court has not disbursed the rent for the months of November and December 1994 then the same be returned to the tenant.;