HEMANT GUPTA,J - (1.) THE challenge in the present revision petition is to the order of ejectment passed by the Courts below under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") on the ground that the demised premises are required for bona fide use and occupation of the landlord.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the landlord is in possession of ancestral house in the same urban area and the said fact has not been disclosed in the eviction petition which disentitles the landlord to seek eviction of the petitioner. Still further, the adjacent premises has been got vacated from the widow of one Govind Sharma and the said premises is in the possession of the landlord and, therefore, for that reason as well the landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of the petitioner. However, I am unable to agree with both the arguments. It has been found by the learned Appellate Authority that the ancestral housed is of 500 square yards in which Nand Kishore, father of the landlord has 1/2 share. Nand Kishore has died leaving widow, eight sons and four daughters. Keeping in view the large number of co-sharers, the share of the landlord is small and that the premises is in possession of different tenants rent of which is being received by the mother of the present landlord. Therefore, keeping in view the fact that the rent is being received by the mother of the present landlord, the omission to plead such share in the ancestral house is wholly inconsequential and does not affect the case set up by the landlord.
(3.) IT has been further found that the demised premises measures 117.20 square yards whereas adjacent premises is built up in the area of 70 square yards. The said adjacent premises is in dilapidated condition and still further it has been found that there is no evidence that the landlord has got vacated the adjacent premises from the widow of Govind Sharma on the ground of personal use and occupation. Keeping in view that the area of the demised premises is 117.20 square yards whereas adjacent premises is built up in the area of 70 square yards, the requirement pleaded is in respect of both the premises. Therefore, the findings recorded by the Courts below cannot be said to be suffering from any patent illegality or material irregularity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.;