- (1.) The tenant-petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order of the Appellant Authority, Gurgaon, dated 28th April, 1977 whereby dismissed the appeal and maintained the order of the Rent Controller directing the ejectment of the petitioner.
(2.) The landlord-respondent has filed an application for ejectment on two grounds, i.e. he requires it for his own occupation as contemplated under Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and that the tenant has committed such acts as are likely to impair the utility and value of the building as provided under Section 13(2)(iii) of the Act.
(3.) It was pleaded in the application that the landlord has retired from service on 15th December, 1968, and as such he requires the house in dispute for his personal use. It was further pleaded that the tenant has demolished one room of the house in dispute which has been shown in the blue colour in the plan annexed and has appropriated the wooden articles and wooden frame for his own use, and as such the utility of the house has been impaired. These allegations were controverted by the tenant in the written statement filed by him. It was pleaded that the landlord is not in need of the house in dispute as he has got other houses at Sonepat and he has vacated the house situated within the limits of Municipal Committee, Sonepat, without any reason, after the enforcement of Act No. 3 of 1949. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- 1. Whether the second party is liable to be evicted on the basis of the grounds mentioned in the application 2. Whether the tenancy of the second party has been terminated by legal notice The Rent Controller found issue No. 1 in favour of the landlord-respondent and ordered ejectment. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner-tenant went up in appeal before the Appellate Authority. The appeal was dismissed and order of the Rent Controller was maintained with the following observation :- "After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties, I having been convinced with the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent, have reached this conclusion, that the ground of the personal necessity of the disputed house, taken up by the respondent-owner is proved to be bonafide. Hence, on the basis of this ground, the appellant-tenant is liable to be evicted from the house in disputed." Now the tenant-petitioner has come up in revision petition against this order.;