J.V.GUPTA,J - (1.) THIS is tenant's revision petition against whom the eviction order has been passed by both the authorities below.
(2.) THE landlord Ram Lal Rajgaria sought the ejectment of his tenant M/s Bhiwani Textile Mills from the demised premises which were a residential house and were given on rent in April, 198, on a monthly rent of Rs. 2400/- including taxes. The ejectment was sought, inter alia on the grounds that landlord required the premises in question for his own use and occupation and that the tenant had materially impaired the value and utility thereof. The stand taken by the tenant was that the landlord did not require the premises, in question, for his own use and occupation as the accommodation already in his occupation was sufficient for him and his family and that he had also another residential building at Bhiwani. It was denied that the tenant had impaired the value and utility of the demised premise, as alleged. The learned Rent Controller found that the landlord had fully proved that he required the tenanted premise for his own use and occupation bonafide. It was also found that the tenant had impaired the value and utility of the demised premises by constructing a pucca shed of a large size in the open space of the premises by installing a monoblock pumping set with the Municipal water-supply and also by connecting the air-conditioner with the three phase main meter with open and kutcha wiring. Consequently, the eviction order was passed on March 26, 1987. In appeal, the Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the eviction order. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that sub-section (4) of section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, (hereinafter called the Act), requires that the Controller shall satisfy himself that the claim of the landlord was bonafide. According to the learned counsel, the premises were originally let out in the year 1979. Later on, the rent was enhanced from time to time. Ultimately, in March, 1984, the premises were got vacated, but again in April, 198, the landlord rented out the premises at the enhanced rate of Rs. 2,400/- per month. Thus, argued the learned counsel, in these circumstances, the application filed on October 17, 1985, for the ejectment of the tenant was not bonafide because if the landlord was really in need of the premises for his own use and occupation, he would not have let them out in April, 1984, again, when the premises were vacated in March, 1984. The learned counsel further contended that the alleged construction in the form of a shed raised by the tenant did not fall within the mischief of section 13(2)(iii) of the Act, as it did not materially impair the value and utility of the demised premises. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Om Pal v. Anand Swarup, 1988 Haryana Rent Reporter 614 : 1988(2) RCR 419.
(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the landlord-respondent submitted that the landlord's family consists of 12 members, out of whom two are married sons. One son had been married in the year 1986 and, therefore, taking into consideration the family members of the landlord, his requirement was most bonafide. The premises were let out to the tenant in April, 1984. At that time, he was occupying a house consisting of two rooms belonging to the T.I.T. where the landlord was in service. The rent paid by him was only Rs. 15.50 per month. Now, during the pendency of the revision petition, he has retired and therefore, he was no more entitled to the said accommodation. In these circumstances, argued the learned counsel, the requirement of the landlord was most bonafide and has been rightly so found by the two authorities below.;