HANS RAJ BHATIA Vs. VIJAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition filed by the landlord is directed against the order dated 10.6.2009 passed by the Appellate Authority and the order dated 14.10.2009 by which the review petition preferred by the petitioner against the said order was also dismissed. The petitioner who is the landlord of the premises, filed a petition for eviction of the respondent on the ground of non-payment of rent and personal necessity. the Rent Controller allowed the petition, whereas in the appeal preferred by the respondent/tenant, the findings have been reversed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority suffers from a grave infirmity, as the entire claim of the petitioner has been declined only on the ground that the petitioner had failed to plead and prove that he was not occupying any other premises in the area in question and had not vacated such a building without sufficient reasons. As such, the Appellate Court concluded that the provisions of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 have not been entirely complied with.

(3.) No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent despite the fact that he was served on 10.2.2010. The case having been adjourned a number of times and no one appearing on behalf of the respondent, the Court is thus left with no other option, but to take into consideration the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, who has contended that it was specifically pleaded by the petitioner that the premises are required by him for his own personal use and occupation. It was next contended that the petitioner is at an advanced age of 77 years and his wife is also beyond 70 years and is suffering from several ailments and it is difficult for them to live alone and desire some child or relative to stay with them. As observed earlier, the prayer was declined only on the ground that the petitioner had failed to plead that he had not vacated any other premises in the area where the demised premises is situated. I am not in agreement with the findings recorded by the learned Lower Appellate Court. It is now a settled proposition of law that it is the landlord who is the best judge of his property.