L.N. Mittal, J (ORAL);— C.M. No. 19735 of 2012 Allowed as prayed for. C.R. No. 4950 of 2012 1. Madalsa who is daughter and legal representative of land-lady Ravi Bala, since deceased, has filed this revision petition under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) assailing orders of both the Authorities below thereby dismissing ejectment petition filed by Ravi Bala under Section 13 of the Act for ejectment of respondent/tenant Satpal from the demised shop. 2. Ejectment was sought on two grounds i.e. nonpayment of rent and electricity consumption charges and personal necessity of the land-lady. Only the ground of personal necessity is pressed before me to seek eviction of the respondent/tenant. The averments regarding the said ground as made in paragraph 5(iii) of the ejectment petition are reproduced hereunder:- “That the applicant had got the building plan sanctioned from Municipal Committee, Jagadhri for residence on dt. 15.12.1987 and constructed this building in the year 1988. Due to financial constraints the building could not be completed as such and after putting shutters on the rooms the building was rented out as shops. Now the applicant not having adequate accommodation for her family and for herself wants to convert the building as residence. Therefore, the shop in question is required for personal necessity of the applicant.” 3. Respondent/tenant controverted the grounds of ejectment pleaded by the land-lady. 4. Learned Rent Controller, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri vide judgement dated 30.10.2010 dismissed the ejectment petition. Appeal preferred by Ravi Bala through legal heir Madalsa Rani against judgement of Rent Controller has been dismissed by learned Appellate Authority, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri vide judgement dated 19.04.2011. Feeling aggrieved, instant revision petition has been filed by Madalsa. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. 6. Paragraph 23 of judgement of learned Rent Controller is reproduced hereunder:- “As far as second ground for personal necessity is concerned, petitioner has not led any evidence in this regard nor learned counsel for petitioner has argued this point. Moreover, it came into evidence that petitioner had sufficient accommodation.” 7. 6. Paragraph 23 of judgement of learned Rent Controller is reproduced hereunder:- “As far as second ground for personal necessity is concerned, petitioner has not led any evidence in this regard nor learned counsel for petitioner has argued this point. Moreover, it came into evidence that petitioner had sufficient accommodation.” 7. Paragraph 22 of judgement of learned Appellate Authority is also reproduced hereunder:- “As regards the other ground of ejectment of personal necessity is concerned, the statement of PW1 Madalsa is very important that her mother had executed a gift deed in her favour. The gift deed was executed on 12.01.2005. On that day her mother ceased to be the owner of the disputed land. Her mother had filed this petition for her personal necessity and during the pendency of the petitions she has got vacated another shop also. Her mother was the grand-daughter of the brother of Raja. She alongwith her mother used to reside in Raja House which is in the area of 3 ½ acres. It was occupied by them only. When her mother filed a suit, at that time she was residing in Raja House. Now she is residing separately in Raja House after the death of her mother on 26.10.2007. She herself got constructed a new house in the year 2005-2006 which is two storied.” 8. Counsel for the petitioner contended that Madalsa who appeared in the witness box as attorney of the original petitioner Ravi Bala stated about personal necessity of the demised property by the land-lady. It was also contended that even the tenant while appearing in the witness box admitted that there is no access to the remaining premises of the land-lady and cycles remain parked in front of house of the land-lady on account of tenant's shop in the demised property. 9. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions, but the same cannot be accepted. It was not even pleaded in the ejectment petition that there is no access to the remaining premises or house of the land-lady or that the demised shop is required for providing access to the same. Consequently, contention in this regard being completely beyond pleadings cannot be accepted. As regards parking of cycles, contention in this regard is also beyond pleadings. Moreover, ejectment was not sought on the ground of nuisance allegedly being created by the tenant by parking of cycles by his customers. 10. Consequently, contention in this regard being completely beyond pleadings cannot be accepted. As regards parking of cycles, contention in this regard is also beyond pleadings. Moreover, ejectment was not sought on the ground of nuisance allegedly being created by the tenant by parking of cycles by his customers. 10. Moreover, as noticed by the Rent Controller, ground of personal necessity seeking ejectment of the tenant from the demised shop was not even argued before the Rent Controller on behalf of the land-lady. In addition to it, Ravi Bala, who filed the ejectment petition on 19.09.2005, was not even land-lady at that time. Madalsa the present petitioner while appearing in the witness box stated that her mother Ravi Bala had executed gift deed dated 12.01.2005 in her favour regarding the demised property. Consequently, since 12.01.2005 - the date of gift deed, Ravi Bala ceased to be owner of the demised shop and consequently ceased to be land-lady and Madalsa became owner and land-lady of the demised shop since then. Thus, Ravi Bala, who filed the ejectment petition on 19.09.2005 was neither owner nor land-lady of the demised shop at that time. 11. Besides it, even during pendency of the ejectment petition, another shop was got vacated on the ground of personal necessity. The present petitioner, and her mother who filed the ejectment petition, were residing in Raja House having area of 3 ½ acres and the same was occupied by them only. Now, the petitioner is residing separately in Raja House after the death of her mother on 26.10.2007. Moreover, the petitioner herself has also constructed a new double storied house in the year 2005-06. Consequently it cannot be said that demised shop is required by the land-lady or the present petitioner for personal necessity. 12. Concurrent finding recorded by the Authorities below against the land-lady/petitioner is fully justified on the basis of the evidence on record. The said finding is the only reasonable finding that can be arrived at on appreciation of evidence. The said finding does not suffer from any perversity, illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error. There is, therefore, no merit in the instant revision petition which is accordingly dismissed in limine.