RAJIVE BHALLA,J - (1.) THE petitioner-tenant impugns an order, dated 11.2.2006, passed by the learned Rent Controller, Ambala City directing his ejectment, as also an order, dated 4.4.2007, passed by the learned Appellate Authority/Additional District Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Ambala, affirming the aforementioned order.
(2.) THE respondents/landlords filed a petition, under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 for the petitioner-tenant's ejectment from shop No. 377, B-4 Dev Samaj Road, Ambala City on the grounds of non-payment of rent w.e.f 1.4.2001 and the bona fide personal need of respondent No. 1 Dr. Raj Kumar Gupta. It was asserted in the petition for ejectment that the Haryana Urban Development Authority has served notices, under Section 17 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977, calling upon respondent No. 1 to close his clinic in House No. 792, Sector 7, Urban Estate Ambala City, as commercial activity is not permitted in residential premises. Respondent No. 1 is, therefore, required to shut down his clinic or face resumption of his house and it was, therefore, prayed that as respondent No. 1 requires the shop for his bona fide need to shift his medical practice, the tenant be evicted from the tenanted premises. The respondent-tenant contested the correctness of the averments in the ejectment petition and asserted that respondent No. 2 resides at Ludhiana, whereas respondent No. 1 carries on his medical practice at his house No. 792, Sector 7, Urban Estate Ambala City. It was further asserted that as the landlords have sold two adjoining shops and are in occupation of a building, within the urban area of Ambala, the need pleaded is not bona fide. It was also asserted that the landlords increased the rent on 27.3.2001, whereas the ejectment petition was filed on 14.6.2001, thus, establishing the mala fides of the plea of bona fide necessity.
(3.) ON the basis of pleadings, the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues : "1. Whether the petitioners required the tenanted premises for their use and occupation ? OPP 2. Whether the present petition is barred as per the provisions of Order 2, Rule 2, CPC ? OPR 3. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ? OPR 4. Whether the present petition is not maintainable ? OPR 5. Relief." ;