SATISH KUMAR Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Landlord has filed this revision petition against the order passed by the Appellate Authority, Hissar, under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction), Act, 1973, for short 'the Act', while hearing the appeal of tenant- respondent against ejectment order dated November 2, 2007, permitting the amendment of the written statement and remanding the matter to the Rent Controller to frame additional issue and to record evidence by giving one opportunity each to both the parties and decide the ejectment petition afresh. The ejectment order passed in favour of the petitioner by the Rent Controller has been set aside.

(2.) Brief facts relevant for the decision of the present case are that petitioner had filed an eviction petition against tenant- respondent from a shop mentioned in heading of the plaint on the ground of personal necessity claiming that the shop was required by the petitioner for use of his two sons, namely, Naveen Kumar, aged 21 years and Shubham aged 19 years and that he was not occupying any shop in urban area of Hisar city and that his two sons had also not vacated any shop after 1949 and that they had sufficient knowledge to carry out the business in the shop in dispute.

(3.) The Rent Controller had held that the landlord- petitioner has been running the business of bangles in Khazanchiyan Bazaar, Hisar and both his sons also worked with him. In order to rebut the said plea it was pleaded by the tenant- respondent that the family of the petitioner had many shops in Tilak Bazaar and Khazanchiyan Bazaar and out of these, one shop is lying vacant in Sham Street in Tilak Bazaar. The Rent Controller arrived at a conclusion that the respondent failed to prove that the family of the landlord- petitioner owned many shops in Tilak Bazaar and Khazanchiyan Bazaar. The Rent Controller observed that though earlier an application filed by the petitioner on the ground of personal necessity had been dismissed but it will not debar the petitioner to file petition for personal necessity for his sons and that he cannot bound his both sons to work with him. It was observed by the Rent Controller that the sons of the petitioner wanted to start new business and when the premises was rented out, the sons were minor and there was no necessity to file the eviction petition. The said finding is not challenged before the Appellate Court. Tenant- respondent sought amendment of the written statement claiming that during the pendency of the rent petition, the circumstances had changed and that he wanted to incorporate certain pleas. The following para was permitted to be added in the written statement:-