CHANDER KALAN Vs. ROSHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners-landlord filed rent petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (in brevity the Act, 1973), seeking eviction of the respondent-tenant from the house in dispute, bearing Municipal No. D-571, situated at Dhani Chejran, Bhiwani. Chander Kalan-Petitioner No. 1, is the landlady, while petitioner No. 2- Rajesh Kumar, is the son of petitioner No. 1. The eviction of the respondent was sought, mainly, on two grounds; firstly, non-payment of rent, and secondly, for the bona fide use and occupation of the house in dispute by petitioner No. 2, Rajesh Kumar. The rent petition was dismissed by the Rent Controller, Bhiwani, vide order dated 02.12.2004. The petitioners, thereafter, preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order dated 02.12.2004, passed by the Rent Controller, Bhiwani before the Appellate Authority, Bhiwani, which was also dismissed vide order dated 10.10.2007. The petitioners have, therefore, filed the present revision, challenging the order dated 02.12.2004 passed by the Rent Controller, Bhiwani, order dated 10.10.2007 passed by the learned Appellate Court, Bhiwani, as also the order dated 10.10.2007 passed by the lower Appellate Court, dismissing the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC filed by the petitioners for leading additional evidence.

(2.) WHILE impugning the order passed by the Rent Controller and the concurrent findings recorded by the lower Appellate Court, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that both the Courts below misread the evidence while deciding their bone fide requirements of the premises. The Courts below failed to peruse the pleadings and the statements of PW-1 and PW-3 in their true perspective and did not appreciate that the petitioners have clearly mentioned in their pleadings that the family of petitioner No. 1, consists of four members excluding petitioner No. 2 (her son) and his wife whom he had married 1 and = years back from the date of the filing of the petition before the learned trial Court, i.e. before 28.09.2001. Meaning thereby, the petitioners consisted of 6 members at the time of the filing of the petition and failed to notice that PW-1 in his affidavit stated that they are now 7 members in all, as a child was also born subsequently.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, evidence and pleadings of the case, I find merit in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners.