The need set up by the appellant in the said application was that he is unemployed and his elder brother is carrying on business at Balasaur in Orissa and the said business is in the name of his elder brother wherein the appellant has numberinterest.
The appellant filed an application before the Rent Controller under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban Control of Rent Eviction Act, 1973 in short the Act for eviction of the respondent tenant on the ground of his bona fide need for the premises.
However, the Rent Controller, after companysidering the evidence on record, came to the companyclusion that the need of the landlord was bona fide and companysequently, the application filed by the landlord was allowed.
It was further asserted that the appellant intended to carry on business of karyana in the premises in dispute and for that purpose he deposited a sum of Rs.
2000 3 SCR 918 The Order of the Court is as follows The appellant herein is the landlord of the premises whereas the respondent is the tenant.
It was also stated that he was suffering from asthma and as per medical advice companystal area is number fit for his habitation.
Aggrieved, the tenant filed an appeal before the appellate authority companystituted under the Act.
The appellate authority affirmed the decision of the Rent Controller.
The need set up by the landlord was denied by the tenant.
The said finding was affirmed by the appellate authority.
45, 000 in fixed deposit.
