Surinder Gupta, J. - (1.) This is revision against the concurrent orders/judgments by learned Rent Controller, Hansi and learned Appellate Authority, Hisar allowing the petition filed by respondent No.1-landlord under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (later referred to as the 'Haryana Rent Act') seeking eviction of the revision petitioner from the demised shop bearing No.19-D/11 situated in Gali Naion Wali, Hansi District Hisar.
(2.) Respondent No.1-landlord sought the ejectment of petitioner from the demised shop on the ground of personal bona fide necessity which was described in para 2 (A) as follows:- "That the petitioner has five shops in a row situated at Gali Naio Wali, Hansi, which bears House Tax units Nos.19-A/11 to 19-E/11 as per the assessment register of M.C. Hansi. Shop No.19-A/11 was occupied by Pawan as tenant under the petitioner, which has been got vacated by the petitioner from the said tenant for the necessity of her son out of Court. Shop No.19-B/11 is occupied by Firm; Sajjan Kumar Kailash Chnad as tenant under the petitioner. Shop No.19-C/11 is occupied by Sh. Subash Chand son of Sh. Suraj Bhan as tenant under the petitioner. Shop No.19-D/11 is under the exclusive possession of respondent No.2 as sub-tenant. Shop No.19-E/11 is under the occupation of the only son of petitioner, who is dealing in the labour job of goldsmith and silver ornaments. The size of that shop is 9'11/2" x 9'1/2", as shown and depicted in the attached site plan. The son of the petitioner wants to expand his business and existing space with him is insufficient for his business. The son of petitioner wants to built up a big show room at a space of 9'1/2" x 34-10" by getting all the tenants ejected (sic from the tenanted premises) occupied by them, referred above, by filing petition of ejectment against them, inter alia, on the ground of bona-fide need. The shop in dispute is required by the petitioner for the need of her son to expand the business. The need of the petitioner is a bona-fide need for her son. The petitioner is not occupying any other shop except mentioned above in the urban area concerned and has also not vacated such building without sufficient cause after the commencement of the 1949 Act in the said urban area."
(3.) Respondent No.1-landlord has also averred in the ejectment petition that revision petitioner had parted with exclusive possession of the demised shop and sublet the same to respondent No.2, who is in exclusive possession of this shop. It was also pleaded that revision petitioner-tenant is in arrears of rent since 01.01.2008.;