JUDGMENT Rajbir Sehrawat, J. (Oral) The petitioner has filed this civil revision under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act 1973 (in short, the Rent Act), praying for setting aside order dated 18.12.2006 passed by the Appellate Authority-cum-District Judge, Kurukshetra whereby the judgment dated 30.05.2006 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Kurukshetra was set aside and the ejectment petition filed by the landlord was dismissed. 2. The brief facts, as involved in this case, are that the petitioners filed the eviction petition against the respondent before the Rent Controller, Kurukshetra asserting therein that they were the owner of two shops situated at Shahabad. Earlier the rent was Rs.500/- per month which was ultimately increased to Rs.750/- per month w.e.f. 01.04.1998 till 30.04.2001. On these facts the eviction petition was filed on the ground of non-payment of rent, personal requirement for establishing business for son of petitioner No. 1, as well as, on account of material alteration in the shop in question. During the pendency of the proceedings rent was paid by the respondent. Therefore, the surviving grounds for eviction were the personal necessity and the material alteration. 3. After considering the respective evidence led by the parties and their arguments, the Rent Controller allowed the eviction petition on the ground of personal necessity, though the other ground of material alteration was not found sustainable. Challenging the said order passed by the Rent Controller the respondent approached the appellate authority. The said authority has reversed the order passed by the Rent Controller. Hence, the present petition. 4. Arguing the case, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners had pleaded in the rent petition the requirement of the premises for establishing business for son of petitioner No. 1, who was having a diploma in electrical engineering. All other requirements of not having any other premises in the same urban area and not having vacated any other premises without sufficient cause; were also pleaded and established during the trial. Not only that even the son of petitioner No. 1 was duly examined before the Rent Controller to establish his necessity and his qualification, as well as, he not having any other similar premises in the same urban area. Therefore, the Rent Controller had rightly passed the eviction order. Not only that even the son of petitioner No. 1 was duly examined before the Rent Controller to establish his necessity and his qualification, as well as, he not having any other similar premises in the same urban area. Therefore, the Rent Controller had rightly passed the eviction order. The Appellate Authority has wrongly reversed the order by recording perverse finding in so far as the lower appellate authority has unnecessarily read the fact of the petitioners having another premises in the same urban area. The said another premises, was also rented out to the Bank at the time of filing of the petition. Therefore, the petitioners were not having any other premises for establishing son of petitioner No. 1 on the date of filing of the petition. It is a different matter that during the pendency of the petition the bank was merged with another bank and the said premises was vacated by the bank, which was sold out by the petitioner No. 1. Counsel has further submitted that another ground taken by the appellate authority to deny the necessity of the son of petitioner No. 1 is that the he was having a passport and therefore, he could have gone abroad and settled there. None of these facts are relevant for decision of a rent petition. The appellate court has gone totally wrong in law. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent has submitted that though above said the other property was rented out to the Bank, however, the bank was not carrying out any operations from the said premises for the last nine months, therefore, the petitioner No. 1 could have very well used that premises for establishing his son. The counsel has further submitted that earlier two more petitions were filed by the landlord-petitioners but the same were withdrawn. Therefore, they are e-stopped from filing the current petition for eviction on the same ground. 6. Having heard the counsel for the parties this court finds substance in the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioners. It is not even in dispute that the petitioners are owner and landlord of the premises in question. The petitioners have duly pleaded all the requirements as required under Section 13(3) & (6) of the Rent Act, which are reproduced hereunder:- Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act 1973 13. Eviction of tenants.- (1) xxx... xxx... xxx... It is not even in dispute that the petitioners are owner and landlord of the premises in question. The petitioners have duly pleaded all the requirements as required under Section 13(3) & (6) of the Rent Act, which are reproduced hereunder:- Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act 1973 13. Eviction of tenants.- (1) xxx... xxx... xxx... (2) xxx... xxx... xxx... The petitioners have duly pleaded all the requirements as required under Section 13(3) & (6) of the Rent Act, which are reproduced hereunder:- Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act 1973 13. Eviction of tenants.- (1) xxx... xxx... xxx... (2) xxx... xxx... xxx... (3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession - (a) In the case of a residential building, if, - (i) he requires it for his own occupation, is not occupying another residential building in the urban area concerned and has not vacated such building without sufficient cause after the commencement of the 1949 Act in the said urban area; (ii) he requires it for use as an office or consulting room by his son who intends to start practice as a lawyer, qualified architect or chartered accountant or as a "registered practitioner" within the meaning of that expression used in the Punjab Medical Registration Act 1916, the Punjab Ayurvedic and Unani Practitioners Act, 1963, or the Punjab Homeopathic Practitioners Act, 1965, or for the residence of his son who is married: Provided that such son is not occupying in the urban area concerned any other building for use as office consulting room or residence, as the case may be and has not vacated it without sufficient cause after the commencement of the 1949 Act;] (iii) it was let to the tenant for use as a residence by reason of his being in the service or employment of the landlord and the tenant has ceased, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, to be in such service or employment: Provided that where the tenant is a workman who has been discharged or dismissed by the landlord from his service or employment in contravention of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, he shall not be liable to be evicted until the competent authority under that Act confirms the order of discharge or dismissal made against him by the landlord; (iv) the tenant has already in his own possession a residential building or subsequently acquires possession of, or erects, such a building reasonably sufficient for his requirement in the urban area concerned; (v) he is a member of the armed forces of the Union of India and requires it for the occupation of his family and produces a certificate from the prescribed authority, referred to in section 7 of the Indian Soldiers (Litigation) Act, 1925, that he is serving under special conditions within the meaning of section 3 of that Act Explanation. For the purposes of this sub-clause "family" means such relations of the landlord as ordinarily live with him and are dependant upon him; (b) in the case of rented land, if he requires it for his own use, is not occupying in the urban area concerned for the purpose of his business any other rented land and has not vacated such rented land without sufficient cause after the commencement of the 1949 Act; (c) in the case of any building or rented land, if he requires it to carry out any building work at the instance of the State Government or local authority or any improvement trust under some improvement or development scheme or if it has become unsafe or unfit for human habitation: Provided that where the tenancy is for a specified period agreed upon between the landlord and the tenant, the landlord shall not, except under sub-clause (v) of clause (a), be entitled to apply under this sub-section before the expiry of such period: Provided further that where the landlord has obtained possession of a residential building or rented land under the provisions of sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (v) of clause (a) or clause (b), he shall not be entitled to apply again under the said provisions for the possession of any other building or rented land of the same class: Provided further that where a landlord has obtained possession of any building under the provisions of sub-clause (ii) of clause (a), he shall not be entitled to apply again under the said sub-clause for the possession of any other building for the use or for the residence, as the case may be, of the same son. xxx... xxx... xxx... xxx... xxx... xxx... 13(6) Where a landlord, who has obtained possession of a building or rented land in pursuance of an order under sub-clause (i) of clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (3), does not himself occupy it or if possession was obtained under sub-clause (v) of clause (a) of sub-section (3), his family does not occupy the residential building, or if possession was obtained by him on behalf of his son in pursuance of an order under sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of subsection (3), his son does no occupy it for the purpose for which possession was obtained, [for a continuous period of twelve months from the date of obtaining possession or if possession was obtained under sub-section 3-A he does not occupy it for his exclusive personal use, for a continuous period of three years] or where a landlord who has obtained possession of a building under clause (c) of sub-section (3) puts that building to any use or lets it out to any tenant other than the tenant evicted from it, the tenant who has been evicted may apply to the Controller for an order directing that the possession of such building or rented land shall be restored to him and the Controller shall make an order accordingly, xxx... xxx... xxx... 7. To prove the above said requirements of the Act, the petitioners themselves have appeared in the witness box and have duly deposed to substantiate the ingredients required as per the provisions of the Act. Not only that even the son of petitioner No. 1 has been examined to prove the fact that he required that premises. Although both the witnesses have been cross examined by the respondents, however, nothing substantial could come out from their examination to impeach the assertions made by the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners have duly proved their personal necessity to get the property vacated from the respondent-tenant. Although, much emphasis was laid by the lower appellate authority on the fact that there was another premises available with the petitioners, which was lying vacant and thus could have been used by them for establishing son of petitioner No. 1, however, the facts on the record show otherwise. Although, much emphasis was laid by the lower appellate authority on the fact that there was another premises available with the petitioners, which was lying vacant and thus could have been used by them for establishing son of petitioner No. 1, however, the facts on the record show otherwise. It is not even in dispute; and it is also bome out from the record that the said premises was on rent with the Punjab National Bank on the date when the petition was filed. It was never got vacated by the petitioners from the Bank; as such by initiating proceedings under the Act. It is only subsequently that the bank merges with another bank and the said premises was vacated by the bank. The said premises was sold out by the petitioners. Therefore, by any means, that premises was not even available with the petitioners when the rent petition was decided. Needless to say that the Act does not prohibit a landlord from selling a property; and selling of any other property by landlord cannot be pleaded as a ground for defeating rent petition filed by the landlord. The other ground taken by the lower appellate court qua the son of petitioner No. 1 having a passport, is totally irrelevant and has been unnecessarily introduced into the case by the lower appellate authority. Therefore, the findings recorded by the appellate authority are not sustainable. 8. It is well settled by now that it is for the landlord to decide about his personal requirement as envisaged by Section 13(3)(b) of the Act. The tenant cannot dictate the terms to the landlord just for his own benefit and to deprive the landlord of the benefits of his own property. There is no clog upon the right of the landlord to get the property vacated except the control of Section 13(6) of the Rent Act; which prescribes that in case the landlord let out the premises after getting it vacated; within a period of twelve months, then the tenants have right to get the possession of the premises back. The said section in itself is sufficient legal check to ensure the bonafides of the landlord in getting the property vacated. Beyond that he could not be burdened with the proof of his bonafide intention, which is very subjective and indeterminate matter, the standard of which may vary from person to person. The said section in itself is sufficient legal check to ensure the bonafides of the landlord in getting the property vacated. Beyond that he could not be burdened with the proof of his bonafide intention, which is very subjective and indeterminate matter, the standard of which may vary from person to person. Issues of the requirement being bonafide would arise only in a rare case where the landlord has vacated another premises on which he himself was tenant on rent; and which he might have vacated only to file eviction petition against his own tenant. In any other case no bonafides are required to be seen at all. 9. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent qua the earlier petitions filed by the petitioner-landlord is also totally non-sustainable. The concept of estoppel and res-judicata are not applicable to the rent petitions, except to the extent specifically mentioned in the Act. As per the provisions of the Act landlord is precluded from filing second petition in certain circumstances if he had already got vacated a similar premises through earlier rent petition. In the present case, there is nothing on record that the petitioner had got vacated another similar premises through the earlier petition, rather, the said petitions were only withdrawn by the petitioner at that time. Otherwise also the personal requirement for a person can arise at any time. So there is no estoppel against the landlord in this regard. 10. In view of the above, findings recorded by the lower appellate court are found to be totally perverse. The same are set aside. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. As a consequence, the respondent-tenant is directed to vacate the premises. 11. The respondent-tenant is granted four weeks' time to vacate the premises and to hand over the possession to the petitioners. It is further ordered that in case the premises is not vacated within a period of four weeks than the petitioners shall be entitled to get possession of the property in question with the Police help; without requiring any further order from any court. It is also ordered that any article lying in the premises, in question, after expiry of four weeks, shall be deemed to have been forfeited in favour of landlord and the landlord shall be entitled to get the same appropriated as his own article/items.