A K JAIN Vs. PREM KAPOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties.

(2.) Leave granted.

(3.) This appeal arises for an eviction pro ceeding instituted by the appellant, the land lord, in terms of S. 13 of the Haryana Ur ban (Control of Rent" and Eviction) Act, 1973. The eviction of the respondent, the tenant, was sought on a number of grounds of which only personal necessity now remains rel evant, and we, accordingly, propose to take note of facts germane to that ground. The Rent Controller, Faridabad rejected the Evic tion Petition (24 of 1998) filed by the appel lant by order dated 26th August, 2004. The appellate authority, however, allowed the appellant's appeal'(Rent Appeal No. 6 of 2004) and ordered the respondent's eviction by judgment dated 28th March, 2005. The High Court in turn, set aside the appellate order and restored the judgment and order passed by the Rent Controller vide, the judg ment and order dated 3rd April, 2007 in Civil Revision No. 2344 of 2005 (O and M), preferred by the respondent. The High Court allowed the respondent's revision and dismissed the eviction petition filed by the appellant pri marily on the ground that the appellant had failed to make the necessary averments in the eviction petition as required by S. 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act. The finding of the High Court that led to the dismissal of the appellant's case is admittedly based on an error of record and the order coming under appeal is therefore liable to be set aside on that score alone. But before proceeding fur ther we must recount the relevant facts and the respective views taken by the Courts below.