PURAN MAL Vs. GIRDHARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition arises out of a petition filed under section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act for the ejectment of the respondent from the house in dispute on the ground of personal necessity. The petition was filed through Nand Kishore, father of the landlord petitioners. None of the petitioners appeared in the witness box to prove personal necessity. Their Mukhtiar Nand Kishore, admitted in the evidence that all the applicants were gainfully employed at far off places. Further, he did not disclose as to which of the applicants intended to shift to Rohtak and occupy the house. On these facts, the Rent Controller, rightly held that no case of personal necessity had been made out. The finding of the Rent Controller, was upheld, on appeal, by the Appellate Authority vide judgment dated November 29, 1976.

(2.) As is evident from the facts noticed above there is not even the slightest evidence to support the claim of the petitioners that they require the house for personal necessity.

(3.) This petition, therefore, must fail and is accordingly dismissed. costs. Revision dismissed.