NAVEEN KUMAR CHOPRA Vs. SUSHIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been preferred by the tenant assailing the correctness of the order passed by the Appellate Authority. The respondent herein (the landlord) filed a petition under Sec. 13(iii)(a)(i) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, seeking eviction of the petitioner from one shop situated in Jind. The Rent Controller, vide a judgment dtd. 2/12/2015, dismissed the petition qua bonafide requirement of the landlord with the following observations:-

(2.) The respondent filed an appeal assailing the correctness of the order passed by the Rent Controller. The Appellate Authority has reversed the judgment of the Rent Controller while observing as under:-

(3.) From careful reading of the order passed by the Appellate Authority, it is evident that the Appellate Authority has failed to analyze the reasons given by the Rent Controller while dismissing the petition. The Appellate Authority, while deciding the appeal, is required to analyze the reasons given by the Rent Controller and thereafter confirm or reverse the finding by the process of reasoning. No doubt, the Appellate Authority has all the powers which are vested with the Rent Controller. However, once the judgment has been given by the Rent Controller, then it is expected from the Appellate Authority to meet with the reasons given by the Rent Controller before reversing the same. In the considered opinion of this Bench, the Appellate Authority has failed to fulfill that requirement. It is evident that the Appellate Authority has made general observations without adverting to the specific reasons given by the Rent Controller.