JUDGMENT
V.S. Aggarwal, J.
1. This is a revision petition filed by Karam Singh, hereinafter described as “the petitioner” directed against the judgment of the Appellate Authority, Ambala, dated 13.6.1996. By virtue of the impugned judgment, the order of the learned Rent Controller, Ambala, was set aside and instead the petition for eviction was dismissed.
2. Notice of the revision petition had been issued to the respondent but none appeared on his behalf. I
3. The relevant facts are that the petitioner had filed an eviction application against the respondent under section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short “the Act”). It was asserted that the respondent has not paid the arrears of rent from 1.3.1989 to 31.7.1990 amounting to Rs. 3,400/- and that the petitioner bona fide requires the property for himself and members of his family. He was presently residing with his parents at House No. 167, Model Town, Ambala City and he has no sufficient accommodation for him.
4. The respondent contested the petition for eviction. It was asserted that the agreed rate of rent is only Rs. 33.50 per month and not Rs. 200/- as alleged and further that the petitioner does not bona fide requires the property for himself and members of his family.
5. The learned Rent Controller accepted the plea of the petitioner qua agreed rate of rent that it was Rs. 200/- per month. However, order of eviction on the ground of personal requirement was passed.
6. The learned Appellate Authority, on the contrary, upset the findings of the Rent Controller that rent is Rs. 200/- per month. It was held that the rent was Rs. 33.50 per month. It was held that the petitioner does not require the property for himself and members of his family.
7. Aggrieved by the same, present revision petition has been filed.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the findings of the learned Appellate Authority that the petitioner does not bona fide require the property. He strongly relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Bal Kishan v. Raj Kumar, 1997 Judicial Reports (Civil and Rent) 472. In the cited case, the landlord was not in occupation of any residential building in his own right. He was living at the sufferance of his mother. His mother had asked him and his family to vacate. It was held that the requirement was bona fide. The Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Company Limited, 1991(1) Judicial Reports (Civil and Rent) 44 also concluded that it is for the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide.
9. Reverting back to the facts of the case, it is admitted that the petitioner is residing in house No. 167, Model Town, Ambala City, with his parents and two brothers. The father of the petitioner has since died. In the said house, there is one drawing room, one dinning room and three rooms. During the pendency of the appeal, two more rooms had been set up. The Appellate Authority rightly recorded that even if the brothers of the petitioner are residing in one room each, still there are two rooms available for the petitioner and members of his family. The house in dispute comprises of only one room. Obviously, the petitioner cannot be held to be making a bona fide desire when he wants to shift from two rooms accommodation to one room accommodation. The findings of fact of the learned Appellate Authority in this regard, therefore, requires no interference.
10. For these reasons, the revision petition must fail because it is obvious that the petitioner is already having sufficient accommodation where he has been residing for all these years. The revision petition is dismissed.
