MOHINDER PRASAD JAIN Vs. MANOHAR LAL JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The father of the respondent herein was the owner of a shop in which the appellant was inducted as a tenant on 1st April, 1972. The monthly rent payable in relation to the said tenanted premises was Rs. 700/-. The original landlord, the father of the respondent having died on 5th March, 1979, the respondent along with his four sisters, became the owner of the said tenanted premises. He was an employee of Hero Honda Motors Limited. He retired from service having attained the age of superannuation. One year after his retirement, he filed an application under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (the Act) for eviction of the appellant from the shop in question on the ground of his bona fide personal requirement, i.e., for the purpose of running wholesale business in Ayurvedic medicines. The said application was dismissed by the Rent Controller holding that the bona fide requirement of the respondent in respect of the non-residential premises has not been proved and moreover he had not been able to show consent of his sisters in his favour in that behalf. An appeal preferred thereagainst was allowed by the Appellate Authority on a finding that he proved his bona fide requirement. In the revision petition filed before the High Court the appellant raised a contention that an application for eviction on bona fide requirement of a non-residential premises was not maintainable.

(3.) It is not in dispute that this Court as also the Punjab and Haryana High Court declared such a provision to be unconstitutional.