MAHINDER KUMAR JAIN AND ORS. Vs. SUBHASH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenants' revision petition under Section 15(5) of the Haryana Urban Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1973, for short 'the Act'.

(2.) The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority have allowed the ejectment application under Section 13 of the Act passing an ejectment order from the shop in dispute situated in Ambala Cantt. on the ground of personal necessity. A concurrent finding of fact has been arrived at by both the authorities that the respondent- landlord bonafide requires the shop in dispute for the necessity of his son and daughter-in-law and that the son of the respondent seeks to start his own business and the livelihood in the tenanted premises alongwith his wife who is having Diploma in Textile Designing.

(3.) Mr. O.P. Goyal, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that t he respondent-landlord has not pleaded the necessary three ingredients of Section 13 (3) (a) (i) (b) and (c) of the Act and that it is imperative for the landlord to specifically plead that he is not occupying any other residential building and that he has not vacated such building without sufficient cause. He has placed reliance on the judgment of Banke Ram Vs. Shrimati Sarasvati Devi, 1977 1 RCR(Rent) 595, Durga Parshad Vs. Har Narain, 1978 PLR 772 and Ajit Singh and another Vs. Jit Ram and another, 2008 4 RCR(Civ) 390 in support of his contention that it is mandatory for the landlord to plead and prove that he or his son was not occupying any other such building and have not vacated such building without sufficient cause whenever he requires any nonresidential premises for his use or for the use of his son. Learned senior counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the ejectment petition which has been appended as annexure P-3 and the written statement annexure P-4 filed by the tenant- petitioners. He has also referred to the affidavit of the landlord- respondent Subhash Chand annexure P-5 and Sachin Singal in support of his contention that the landlord has not pleaded or proved that he bonafide requires the premises and that he was not occupying any other such building or that he has not vacated such building without sufficient cause.