SURESH KUMAR Vs. NATHU RAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Suresh Kumar, one of the three tenants, has filed this revision petition under section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (in short, the Act), having lost before both the Authorities below. Respondent No. 1 Nathu Ram landlord filed two ejectment petitions under section 13 of the Act against petitioner herein and his brother Naresh Kumar and sister Usha (proforma respondents No. 2 and 3 herein). In ejectment petition No. 3 of 2008, ejectment was sought on three grounds i.e. non-payment of rent, bonafide necessity of the demised shop for business of landlord's son Gulshan and also that the shop has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. In the second ejectment petition No. 18 of 2010, ejectment was sought on ground of non-payment of rent for subsequent period. However, in the instant revision petition, bonafide requirement of the demised shop for business of landlord's son Gulshan is in issue. Para 3(b) of the ejectment petition detailing the necessity of the demised shop for son of the landlord is reproduced herein under:-

(2.) The tenancy was initially created in favour of Tarsem Chand father of petitioner and proforma respondents No. 2 and 3 herein and now they are the tenants.

(3.) The tenants in their reply controverted the averments of the landlord while admitting the tenancy. Corresponding paragraph No. 3(b) of the written reply filed on behalf of the petitioner herein is reproduced hereinunder:-