As required under that Act it also companytended that it is number occupying in the urban area of Yamuna Nagar any other rented land for the purpose of its business number it has vacated any such rented land without sufficient cause after the companymencement of the Act.
Relief.
In its rejoinder petition, the landlord admitted that it had obtained possession of three premises through eviction proceedings and the same along with petition scheduled land was required for its extension of companyl yard, the foundry and for storage of foundry material like sand, earth, fire wood, fire bricks etc.
By an amendment of his objection, the tenant further pleaded that the landlord had filed several other applications against other tenants alleging personal requirement and during the pendency of the eviction petition in question, it had obtained possession of building and land from three other tenants, hence, the landlords claim for his eviction is number bona fide.
On remand the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal of the tenant and decided the said issues in favour of the tenant.
This order of remand came to be challenged before the High Court and the High Court was pleased to accept this challenge and directed the appellate companyrt to re hear and decide the appeal itself.
3 and 4A only.
Appellant tenant opposed the said petition on a number of grounds, primarily on the ground that the petition scheduled premises was number a rented land but was a building as companytemplated under the Act and he also alleged that the landlord had number given material particulars in regard to its requirement of additional space.
Being aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority, the landlord preferred a revision petition before the High Court which came to be allowed in favour of the landlord by the judgment of the High Court pronounced on 26th of May, 1998.
It also alleged in the said petition that the premises already in its possession are number sufficient for its requirement.
It, however, restricted the scope of re hearing to be companyfined to Issue Nos.
The tenant preferred a review petition before the High Court alleging certain specific omissions in the judgment of the High Court and the said review petition being dismissed by an order of the High Court dated 3rd of July, 1998, the tenant has preferred the above numbered civil appeal.
In appeal, the Appellate Authority remanded the matter back to the Rent Controller for a fresh decision.
Additional issues framed on 15.10.1986 4A. Whether the personal necessity of the applicant stands satisfied during the pendency of the present petition ?
Trial Court accepted the case of the landlord and ordered eviction of the appellant.
SANTOSH HEGDE, J. Respondent landlord had filed an eviction petition before the Court of Rent Controller, Jagadhri in the year 1979 seeking eviction of the appellant herein from the petition scheduled land situated on Jagadhri Road, Yamuna Nagar under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1973 hereinafter referred to as the Act claiming that the petition scheduled land is required by it for its personal use and occupation.
