Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 353 (PNJ)

Ashok Kumar v. Om Prakash

2007-03-05

HEMANT GUPTA

body2007
Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order of ejectment passed by the authorities below under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground of bona-flde use and occupation of the premises in dispuie by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the landlord"). 2. The landlord sought the ejectment of the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) from the ground floor portion consisting of a shop with store, verandah, passage, stair-case and a godown. It is the case of the landlord that he is owner of double storyed building, In the first floor portion, the elder son of the landlord is residing along with his family members, whereas the tenant is in possession of the ground floor i.e. a shop portion at a monthly rent, of Rs. 700/- excluding bouse tax, since the year 1982. It is, the case of the landlord that he has two sons, namely Ved Prakash and Arun Kumar. Ved Prakash is elder son. Both are married and are having children. Both are working with the landlord in shop No. 72 situated in the Ward No. 6, Purani Anaj Mandi, Sohana, but the sons are not pulling well with the landlord. The eldest son Ved Praksh has a separate mess and started his separate residence on the first floor portion of the demised premises. One shop measuring 8 feet x 8 feet, constructed in the front side verandah of the shop situated in Purani Anaj Mandi is in occupation of one Devki Nandan, tenant. It is the case of the landlord that he has decided to settle his elder son Ved Prakash in the demised premises and the younger son Arun Kumar in the shop measuring 8 feet x 8 feet, now in possession of the tenant for which the eviction of the tenant has been sought as well. 3. It is the stand of the tenant that in the year 1990, an oral agreement took place between the parties and a portion of the tenanted area was given to the landlord. Subsequently, in the year 1995, the landlord constructed first floor. 3. It is the stand of the tenant that in the year 1990, an oral agreement took place between the parties and a portion of the tenanted area was given to the landlord. Subsequently, in the year 1995, the landlord constructed first floor. It has been pointed out that the area given to the landlord in the oral agreement is the best commercial portion for the business of commission agency and the elder son of the petitioner, namely, Ved Prakash deals in business sometime form the said place. It has been further pleaded that the landlord does not remain well and is not able to look after the business and both of his sons are running the business of commission agents in very good condition. It was stated that the landlord and his wife are residing with Ved Prakash on the first floor portion of the demised premises, though it is denied that Ved Prakash would start his business in the premises in dispute. 4. The learned Rent Controller found that the demised premises consists of double storyed building. The first floor of the building is a residential property in which the elder son of the landlord, namely, Ved Prakash, is residing, whereas the ground floor consists of a shop, verandah and a godown. It was found that the son of the landlord is working in shop as an employee and also receiving sufficient amount in lieu of the duties and thus, it was found that landlord is in bona-fide need of the said property, for the purposes of running separate business of his elder son Ved Prakash and consequently, the Rent Controller passed an order of eviction. The learned Appellate Authority affirmed the order of ejectment passed fey the learned Rent Controller. The Appellate Authority also declined an application filed by the tenant for production of additional evidence i.e. an order of ejectment in respect of the premises in occupation of Devki Nandan. 5. Learned Counsel for the landlord has candidly stated that he has no objection if the order of evictions passed against Devki Nandan, is taken on record as it is the case of the landlord that the premises in possession of Devki Nandan are required for the use and occupation of another son of the landlord, namely, Arun Kumar, whereas the demised premises are required for use and occupation of Ved Prakash. In view thereof, the order of ejectment passed by the learned Rent Controller on 6.5.2003 and affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority on 20.11.2003, in respect of the premises in possession of Devki Nandan, is permitted to be taken on record. 6. Learned Counsel for the tenant has vehemently argued that the landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from a non-residential building, except in accordance with the provision of Section 13(3-A) of the Act. However, the said argument is not tenable in view of the Honble Supreme Court judgment in Mohinder Prasad Jain V/s. Manohar Lal Jain, wherein it has been held that a landlord is entitled to seek ejectment of a tenant from a non-residential building in the State of Haryana following the earlier view of the Honble Supreme Court in Harbilas Raj Bansal V/s. State of Punjab (1996-1) 112 P.L.R. 227 (S.C.). The provisions of Section 13(3-A) of the Act, confer a separate cause of action on a landlord retired or discharged from the armed forces or who has a minor son to seek eviction in a particular manner. The provisions of 13(3-A) of the Act, are not applicable in the present case, where the landlord has sought eviction on the ground that the demised premises are required for bona-fide use and occupation of his family members. Such ground of eviction is available to the landlord in view of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Mahavir Prasad Jains case (supra). 7. Faced with such a situation, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised an argument that in terms of proviso to Section 13(3-A) of the Act, the landlord cannot seek ejectment from any other non residential building. However, the said proviso is not applicable to the landlord as he has not retired or discharged from the armed forces nor he has sought ejectment for the requirement of a minor son. 8. As a matter of fact, the landlord has sought ejectment of the tenant on the ground that the premises in possession of Devki Nandan, are required for use of his younger son Arun Kumar, whereas the premises in dispute are required for use and occupation of his elder son Ved Prakash. 8. As a matter of fact, the landlord has sought ejectment of the tenant on the ground that the premises in possession of Devki Nandan, are required for use of his younger son Arun Kumar, whereas the premises in dispute are required for use and occupation of his elder son Ved Prakash. It is the case of the tenant himself in the written statement that Ved Prakash is residing on the first floor of the demised premises, therefore, the requirement of the shop portion situated on the ground floor cannot be said to be a case of mere desire. 9. Both the Courts have returned a concurrent finding of fact on the basis of appreciation of evidence that the premises in dispute are required for bona-fide use and occupation of the elder son of the landlord, namely, Ved Prakash. 10. In view thereof, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders passed by the authorities below, which may warrant interference by this Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 11. Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed. 12. However, the tenant is granted 3 months time to vacate the premises in dispute.