JAGDISH CHANDER Vs. SUGANDI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant-petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority dated 20th January, 1976, whereby the order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller was maintained.

(2.) The landlord-respondents filed an application seeking the ejectment of his tenant-petitioner on the ground that he has not paid rent from 1.7.1975 upto date and house tax for the year 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76, and secondly that they require the house in dispute for their own use and occupation. It has been further pleaded that they do not own any other residential house in the urban area of Faridabad nor they have vacated any. The tenant contested the claim of the landlords. The Rent Controller passed the order of ejectment on both the grounds pleaded by the landlords. It was held by the Rent Controller that the tender made by the tenant is short as he had failed to deposit assessed costs which formed part of the rent. On the bonafide requirement of the premises for their own use and occupation, the Rent Controller believed the statement of the landlady as he did not find any reason to disbelieve the statements of Sugandhi Lal and Smt. Satya Devi landlords. In appeal, the finding of the Rent Controller on the short tender has been reversed, but the order of ejectment the premises for their own use and occupation. Feeling aggrieved against this, the tenant petitioner has come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the landlord did not plead the necessary ingredients of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rents & Eviction) Act, 1973, and in any case there is no evidence to prove the said ingredients. In the absence of any proof no order of ejectment could be passed. In support of his contention, he referred to Panna Lal v. Dey Jit, 1976 RCJ 817.