SAT PARKASH CHAUDHARY Vs. KEWAL KRISHAN MALHOTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant's petition directed against the order of the Appellate Authority, Karnal dated 30.7.2010 vide which the petitioner has been ordered to be evicted from the demised premises. The respondent-landlord preferred a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') seeking eviction of the petitioner on the grounds of bona fide necessity, non-payment of rent and creating nuisance. The petitioner denied all the averments made in the petition and controverted the allegations that he had not paid the rent and that he is creating nuisance.

(2.) The Rent Controller after framing the following issues appraised the entire evidence before it and concluded that the petition was liable to be rejected and ordered accordingly:-

(3.) In appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed the findings of the Rent Controller and ordered the eviction of the petitioner which has resulted in filing of the instant revision petition wherein the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondentlandlord failed to plead the requisites of Section 13 of the Act. He referred to the three ingredients which are specifically required to be pleaded by a landlord as enshrined in the statute. He contended that since the respondent-landlord merely pleaded two of the essential ingredients such as his own personal need and that he had not vacated any house in the municipal area where the demised premises is situated, but failed to plead that he was not occupying any other premises in the area, therefore the petition deserves to be rejected on this ground alone. He relied upon a decision of the Full Bench of this Court reported as Banke Ram v. Shrimati Sarasvati Devi, 1977 1 ILR(P&H) 786, wherein in para 9 of the judgment it has been