Bona fide landlord need and additional evidence on appeal under rent law upheld; eviction order confirmed.

Section 15(4) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 was construed to permit the appellate authority to make further inquiry and receive additional evidence where the pleadings and facts justified it. The Court found the evidence was properly admitted, the tenant had an opportunity to meet it, and no prejudice was shown. On bona fide requirement under section 13(3)(a)(i), the landlord's need was held genuine because the ancestral accommodation was inadequate and the earlier house near Kabir Bhavan was not shown to be available in a way that defeated the claim. The eviction order was therefore confirmed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellate authority under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 could admit additional evidence and whether such evidence was properly considered. (ii) Whether the landlord satisfied the requirement of bona fide need under section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act, including the effect of the alleged ancestral accommodation and the earlier purchase and sale of another house.

Issue (i): Whether the appellate authority could admit additional evidence and whether such evidence was properly considered.

Analysis: Section 15(4) of the Act empowered the appellate authority to make such further enquiry as it thought fit and to decide the appeal accordingly. The power to receive additional evidence was therefore available where the facts and pleadings justified it. The landlord's case was not unfairly expanded, the tenant had opportunity to meet the new material, and no prejudice was shown. The appellate authority also did not ignore the evidence recorded before the Rent Controller merely because it did not refer to every paragraph of that order.

Conclusion: The admission and consideration of additional evidence by the appellate authority were proper and valid.

Issue (ii): Whether the landlord satisfied the requirement of bona fide need under section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act, including the effect of the alleged ancestral accommodation and the earlier purchase and sale of another house.

Analysis: The landlord's residential need was found genuine on the evidence, and the accommodation in the ancestral house was inadequate even if the entire available space was counted. The question whether the landlord was a licensee or co-owner of the ancestral house was not decisive, because in either view the accommodation available was insufficient for the family. The earlier house near Kabir Bhavan was not shown to have been actually vacant, and the sale of that house before the eviction proceedings did not establish occupation of another residential building so as to defeat the landlord's claim. The Act had to be construed reasonably, without reading into it an implied restriction on lawful sale or alienation not found in the text.

Conclusion: The landlord satisfied the statutory requirement of bona fide need and was entitled to eviction.

Final Conclusion: The tenant's challenge failed, and the eviction order in favour of the landlord stood confirmed.

---