ARJAN DASS Vs. MASTER SHIV DUTT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's petition in whose favour eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller but was set aside in appeal.

(2.) THE landlords sought the ejectment of the tenant from the house in dispute on the ground that they required the same for their ownuse and occupation. It was pleaded that they did not occupy and other residential building in the urban area of Faridabad and have not vacated such building without sufficient cause. These allegations were controverted by the tenant. The learned Rent Controller found that the landlords required the premises for their own bonafide use and occupation. Consequently, eviction order was passed. In appeal, the learned appellate authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller and consequently dismissed the ejectment application. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlords have filed this petition in this Court.

(3.) TODAY no counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the tenant rather it was admitted at the bar that tenant has constructed the said house. Under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, if the tenant has already in his possession residential building or subsequently acquires possession of, or erects such a building reasonably sufficient for his requirements in the urban area concerned the landlord is entitled to seek ejectment of this tenant. In view of this provision, the revision petition is liable to be accepted on this ground alone.