KANWAR SINGH Vs. MAMAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority, Bhiwani, dated August 22, 1977 by which the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller was affirmed and the appeal was dismissed.

(2.) The landlord-respondent sought eviction of the tenant-petitioner under section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter to be called the Act), on a number of grounds. But the primary and sole ground on which the eviction has been ordered is the bonafide requirement of the landlord respondent of the demised premises for his own use and occupation. According to the averments in the eviction petition, the demised premises comprised of two rooms and a kitchen on the ground floor of the building and the first floor comprising of three rooms, three stores, a kitchen and a bath room were in possession of the landlord. Portion of the building in his own possession being insufficient accommodation in view of the large size of the family comprising of eight members including five sons and one daughter, the demised premises were bonafide required for his own occupation and that of the family. It was also averred that the landlord had to celebrate the marriage of one of this sons, Ramesh Kumar and the demised premises were also required for his residence. According to his father's averments, he had no other house in the city of Bhiwani. The case of the tenant-petitioner, in his reply, was that the respondent lived with his family in Calcutta and was also carrying on his business there and that he was not in need of the demised premises and further that the premises in his occupation already were sufficient for the purpose of the residence of the landlord. The other grounds on which the ejectment had been sought need not be adverted to as the petition has been contested only on the ground of bonafide requirement on both sides, before me. The other grounds either did not subsist or were found to have been proved by the Rent Controller and his findings were not challenged in appeal either.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised a preliminary objection that the requisite ingredients, as continued in section 13 of the Act, have not been impleaded. A perusal of the averments in the eviction petition shows that the averments to the following effect were made in the eviction petition :-