VIDYA RATTAN TANEJA Vs. RAM LAL SACHDEVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Appellate Authority vide which appeal filed by the tenant-respondent against the order of eviction has been accepted.

(2.) PETITIONERS and proforma respondent No. 2. filed a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1973 seeking eviction of the respondent No. 1 from the rented premises bearing No. 12/491 comprised four rooms, verandah, kitchen, bath-room store, latrine etc. situated at Batra Colony, Sonepat. The case of the petitioners was that they were the landlord and respondent was the tenant in the rented premises @ Rs. 70/- per month since the year 1972. The house was rented out for residential purpose and that now he has ceased to occupy the house and he has shifted to his own house. The petitioner seeks ejectment of the respondent on the following grounds : "(i) That the respondent has not paid the rent since 1973 and thus he is liable to pay the arrears of rent for the last 3 years legally recoverable from him which have become due preceding the date of this application together with house tax @ 12% costs and interest as may be assessed by the Hon'ble Court. (ii) That the applicant requires the said house for their own occupation as they are not occupying any other residential building in the urban area of Sonepat and they have not vacated such building after the commencement of 1949 Act in the said Urban Area of Sonepat. The applicants were previously in service, but now the applicants No. 1 & 2 have already retired and therefore want to occupy their own house at Sonepat, where all their near and dear relatives are permanently settled and thus they also want to be with them at the place of their permanent residence, which they are legally and morally entitled especially after their retirement from service. (iii) That the respondent has to occupy the above said house as he has in his own possession a residential building subsequently acquired by him, but is un-necessarily retaining the possession of the said house for some ulterior motives."

(3.) THE learned Rent Controller accepted the petition by observing that the petitioners were able to prove their personal bona fide and it was for the tenant to have prove the ulterior motive to get the house vacated. Thus, the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that as no ulterior motive could be proved by the tenant the need has to be held to be bona fide. The learned Rent Controller also took the notice of Section 13(6) of the Rent Act to hold that in case the premises was not occupied the possession could be taken back by the tenant.