PURAN CHAND Vs. JAI GOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant is in revision before this Court against concurrent findings of fact by both the Courts below whereby eviction of the petitioner has been ordered on the ground of personal necessity of the landlord.

(2.) THE petition for eviction was field by the landlord on the ground of change of user, the building having become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, non-payment of rent and for personal necessity. However, on consideration of the pleadings of the parties and also the evidence on record, the learned Rent Controller accepted the same only on the ground of personal necessity. In appeal, the Appellate Authority upheld the order passed by the Rent Controller ordering eviction of petitioner/tenant.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner primarily raised an issue that the petition filed by the respondents/landlords was liable to be dismissed on the ground of concealment of material facts and also on account of nondisclosure of necessary ingredient in the petition filed for eviction of the petitioner. He submitted that in view of Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, the landlord was required to plead and state about the ownership and occupancy of other premises and also about the eviction of any other tenant from any other premises. However, the petition filed was totally silent on that score. Accordingly, the petition lacking basic facts, as are statutory required to be pleaded, deserved dismissal.