RAJIVE BHALLA, J. - (1.) THIS revision, filed by a tenant impugns the judgment of Appellate Authority, Bhiwani dated 20.1.1994, whereby the judgment of the Rent Controller dated 16.1.1992, dismissing the petition for ejectment, was reversed.
(2.) THE respondent herein, filed a petition for ejectment of the petitioner, pleading various grounds. The only grounds that survive for consideration are whether the premises in dispute are residential/non-residential and whether the Appellate Authority was right in directing the petitioner's ejectment on the plea of personal necessity. Admittedly, the petitioner is a tenant in a shop located in a residential building. The respondent landlord, prayed for ejectment, citing his personal necessity and basing his plea in respect thereof, on the ground that his family of four, including his wife and three children were residing in a single room and one store behind the shop. It was pleaded that this property was insufficient to meet their needs and, therefore, the petitioner be ejected from the premises occupied by him. The aforementioned plea was opposed by the petitioner by alleging that the building was non-residential, as he was a tenant in the shop. The shop was rented out to him by the previous landlord. It was also asserted that the sale-deed, whereby the respondent purchased the property in dispute, referred to the premises, as a shop and, therefore, the right to seek ejectment, on the ground of personal necessity, was not available to the respondent. After framing issues and permitting the parties to lead evidence, the learned Rent Controller dismissed the petition for ejectment. It was held that the premises in dispute was residential and the plea for ejectment on the ground of personal necessity was not bona fide.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the aforementioned order, the respondent herein, preferred an appeal. The petitioner, aggrieved by the finding that the premises were residential, impugned the said finding by way of cross-objections. The appellate authority, vide judgment dated 21.1.1994, accepted the appeal, filed by the respondent landlord. The finding of the trial Court on the nature of the building were affirmed. The first appellate Court proceeded to reverse the finding of the trial court on the ground of personal necessity and ordered ejectment of the petitioner.;