RAJ KUMAR Vs. KANAK PRABHA BHATIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER (tenant) is in revision under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the concurrent findings returned by both the courts below, whereby the ejectment application filed by the respondent (landlady) on the ground of personal necessity for herself as well as for settling her son, who was working in Dubai and has come back to India, in the house in question was allowed by the learned Rent Controller, Gurgaon vide its order dated 28.04.2012 and the findings thereof were affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority, Gurgaon vide its order dated 18.12.2012. In brief, facts of the case are that respondent (landlady) Mrs. Kanak Prabha Bhatia filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act for eviction of the petitioner (tenant) Raj Kumar Parshad from house No. 2043, Sector 4, Urban Estate, Gurgaon. It was averred in the petition that the demised premises was required by son of respondent (landlady) namely Garv Bhatia who was working in Dubai and intends to come back to India and settle himself. Personal requirement of landlady herself was also pleaded who has been serving as a teacher in Kendriya Vidyalaya, Delhi Cantt. Thus, the need for herself as well as her son was projected by the landlady.

(2.) UPON notice, the ejectment application was resisted by the petitioner (tenant) on the ground that the necessity as projected is false and frivolous. It was denied that respondent (landlady) requires the demised premises for herself and for her son.

(3.) FROM the pleadings of the parties issues were framed. Both sides led their evidence in support of their respective claims and after appreciating their evidence, learned Rent Controller allowed the ejectment application and the findings thereof were affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority. Hence the present revision petition.