MEGH RAJ Vs. DEEPAK GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is revision petition by tenant Megh Raj under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (in short, the Act), after the tenant failed before both the Authorities below. Deepak Garg-respondent No. 1 herein-landlord filed ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Act against the petitioner-tenant and his son Chander Parkash (respondent No. 2 herein-alleged sub-tenant) seeking their ejectment from the demised shop. Ejectment was sought on two grounds i.e. subletting by tenant-petitioner herein in favour of respondent No. 2 and bonafide requirement of the demised property by the landlord for carrying on business of jewellery.

(2.) Relationship of landlord and tenant between petitioner herein and respondent No. 1 herein was not disputed. However, grounds of subletting and personal necessity of the landlord were controverted. It was pleaded that respondent No. 1 being son of the tenant was assisting him in the business. It was also pleaded that father of the landlord was working as jeweller in a different shop. The demised shop has been purchased to sell it for a higher amount after getting it vacated. Two other shops have been purchased by the father of the landlord in the name of his other son Amit and the said shops are being used by the father of the landlord. Various other pleas were also raised.

(3.) Learned Rent Controller, Gurgaon vide impugned judgment dated 14.02.2011 held that subletting was not proved, but held the bonafide requirement of the landlord to be proved and ordered ejectment of the tenant on this ground. Appeal against the said judgment preferred jointly by both the tenant and sub-tenant has been dismissed by learned Appellate Authority vide impugned judgment dated 04.06.2011. Feeling aggrieved, tenant has filed this revision petition.