RAJESH KUMAR Vs. SHASHI BALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Ashish Bansal, Advocate puts in appearance and files his power of attorney along with no objection from the previous counsel on behalf of petitioner. The same is taken on record.

(2.) Petitioner/tenant is impugning the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below, i.e. the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, vide which he was ordered to be evicted from the demised premises. The parties to the lis hereinafter shall be referred to by their original position in the eviction petition.

(3.) The brief facts, as pleaded by the landlady, while filing the petition under Sec. 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act') may be noticed as thus:- The landlady claimed to be owner of the demised premises i.e. shop bearing No.524/3 measuring 9.5 square yards marked by letters ABCD and as shown in site plan vide sale deed vasika No.3916 dtd. 22/11/2006. The demised shop was rented out to the tenant in the month of October 2012 at a monthly rent of ' 10,000/-. The landlady sought eviction of the tenant from the demised premises on grounds of non-payment of rent from 1/8/2013 till 31/1/2017, and for personal bona fide necessity as she wanted to amalgamate the area of this shop with her own TQS Mall where her sons were running a business. It was pleaded by the landlady that since the demised shop was also required for the business of her sons, the tenant be ordered to vacate it. It was also further claimed by the landlady that the demised premises was in a damaged/dilapidated condition for which construction was also required to be carried out.