RAM KUMAR Vs. SATISH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present revision petition is to the judgment dtd. 15/11/2017 vide which the petition filed by the respondent-landlord under Sec. 13 of the Haryana Rent Act of 1973 had been allowed by the Rent Controller, Kaithal on the ground of bona fide necessity and the petitioner had been directed to hand over the vacant possession of the tenanted premises in question within a period of two months. Challenge is also to the judgment dtd. 31/7/2024 vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner had been dismissed by the Appellate Authority. It would be relevant to note that in the said appeal, the cross-objections of the respondent had been allowed, however, no separate revision has been filed to challenge the same.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the observations made by the 1st Appellate Authority in para 24 of its judgment and has submitted that the rent deed dtd. 12/1/2000 relied upon by the landlord had been tampered with, inasmuch as, instead of 15% increase in the rent after every three years the said document contains 45% increase after every three years and has submitted that in order to prove the said interpolation, the petitioner had examined a handwriting expert Shamsher Singh Malik (RW-3) who had given the opinion that in the rent note dtd. 12/1/2000 there was an increase of 15% which later on was converted into 45% and the counsel for the petitioner has thus submitted that the 1st Appellate Authority had taken into consideration the said aspect and the evidence of the handwriting expert. It is submitted that since it had been prima facie found that there was interpolation done by the respondent-landlord, thus, his bona fides are questionable and, therefore, the eviction order passed on the ground of bona fide requirement in favour of the respondent-landlord is unsustainable and the impugned judgments deserves to be set aside on the said ground alone.

(3.) This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and has perused the paper-book and is of the opinion that the impugned order dtd. 31/7/2024 passed by the 1st Appellate Authority is in accordance with law and deserves to be upheld and the present revision petition is meritless and deserves to be dismissed for the reasons detailed hereinafter.