N.K.SODHI, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority dated 6. 9. 1993 affirming that of the Rent Controller whereby the petitioner-tenant has been ordered to be evicted from the premises in dispute on the ground that the same are bona fide required by the landlord-respondent for his own use and occupation.
(2.) SHRI Anant Pal Singh Grewal (hereinafter referred to as the landlord) is the owner of double storeyed farm house in question in which the petitioner was inducted as a tenant as per rent agreement dated 25. 5. 1980. The tenanted premises consist of two bed rooms, one dining room, one garrage, one kitchen and one toilet and these were let out to the petitioner for doing business. The landlord sought ejectment of his tenant on two grounds namely; (i) non-payment of rent and (ii) that the premises were required by the landlord for his own use and occupation. The petition was contested by the tenant and it was pleaded that the premises in question were non-residential and the same were rented out to the tenant for commercial purposes and, therefore, the ground of personal necessity was not available to the landlord. Pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues :1) Whether the petitioner requires the premises in question for his occupation? OPp 2) Whether the petition is barred Under Section 14 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973? OPd 3) Relief. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence led by the parties, the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the premises in dispute were residential though they had been let out for commercial purpose but since the written permission of the Rent Controller had not been obtained Under Section. 11 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short the Act) the premises would continue to be a residential building and that the landlord was en-titled to seek ejectment of the tenant on the ground of his bona fide requirement. The Rent Controller referred to the site plan and relied on the statement of the Building Inspector to come to the conclusion that the building was residential in naturet The landlord also appeared as his own witness and stated that he was working as a Senior Sales Executive with Mercury Travels and was due to retire in the year 1988. According to him he was living in Delhi in a rented premises on the first floor. He also stated that he was suffering from high blood pressure and had developed some heart problem in July, 1985 and was advised to live on the ground floor. The Rent Controller placed reliance on the statement of the landlord and found that the demised premises were bonafide required by him for his own use and occupation. Issue No. 1 was accordingly decided in favour of the landlord and against the tenant and the latter was ordered to be evicted from the demised premises. On appeal, the Appellate Authority affirmed the findings recorded by the Rent Controller and held that the petitioner was liable to be evicted on account of the bonafide personal requirement of the landlord. Hence this revision petition.
(3.) I have heard counsel for the parties.;