ARVIND KUMAR Vs. SUDESH KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners(tenants) are in revision under Section 15(6) of Haryana Urban(Control of Rent & Eviction) Act 1973(hereinafter referred to as the "Act") against the concurrent findings returned by both the Authorities below, whereby ejectment application filed by the respondentSudesh Kumari-landlady on the ground of personal necessity to start a restaurant has been allowed by the learned Rent Controller, Panchkula vide its order dated 19.12.2011 and the findings thereof have been affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority, Panchkula vide its judgment dated 20.12.2012.

(2.) In brief, facts of the case are that respondent(landlady) Sudesh Kumari filed an ejectment application of the petitioners(tenants) from the demised premises being a portion of the basement and ground floor of SCF No.52, Sector 8, Panchkula on the ground that the same was required for personal requirement of herself, her husband Ashok Kumar as well as son Kunal Kharbanda because husband of landlady is not doing any job or business and was earlier a government contractor. It was also stated that her son Kunal Kharbanda is doing Hospitality and Commerce Cookery course from Australia after taking rupees 15 lacs as educational loan and thus the demised premises is required by the landlady and her family for running a restaurant business. It was also claimed that neither she nor her husband nor her children are occupying any other commercial/non residential property in the urban area of Panchkula nor any suit property has been vacated. Thus, the present ejectment petition.

(3.) Upon notice, petitioners(tenants) appeared and filed written statement whereby it was stated that the husband of landlady is carrying on business in UP and the landlady along with her family members owned a showroom at Panchkula which was purchased by them in the year 2001 and same has not been disclosed in the ejectment application. Thus, there is concealment of facts. The necessity as alleged in the ejectment application was denied and prayer was made for dismissal of the ejectment application. From the pleadings of the parties issues were framed. Both sides lead evidence and after appreciating their evidence learned Rent Controller, Panchkula allowed the ejectment application and the findings thereof were affirmed in appeal by the learned Appellate Authority, Panchkula. Hence the present revision petition.