SITAWATI Vs. SANJAY SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Landlord has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), challenging the order dated 16.3.2005 passed by the Appellate Authority whereby the judgement passed by the Rent Controller was set aside and eviction petition filed by the landlord was dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the present case are that landlord - revisionist has filed eviction petition against the tenant - respondent herein with the allegation that initially father of the present tenant was the tenant and after his death, respondent has become the tenant of the revisionist regarding the shop in dispute; tenant has not paid or tendered arrears of rent w.e.f. 1/11/1993; landlord - revisionist requires the said shop for occupation i.e. Dental Clinic of her son and daughter-in-law as both are Dental Surgeon and are registered under the Haryana Medical Registration Act. Beside this, daughter of the petitioner is also a doctor, who also wants to start her own clinic as Eye surgeon. The accommodation already in possession of the landlord is not sufficient to accommodate the son, daughter-in-law and daughter to do medical practice therein.

(3.) Petition was hotly contested by the tenant. However, the Rent Controller vide judgement dated 28.7.2004 directed eviction of the tenant " respondent on the ground of bonafide, genuine and pressing need of the landlord. The Rent Controller has recorded finding that three shops where landlord and his family members are already running a clinic, are not sufficient, hence tenanted shop is required for the extension of the clinic to accommodate the son, daughter-in-law and daughter. However, in appeal, the Appellate Court has observed that landlord has not given dimension of the three shops already in possession of the landlord to prove that the accommodation available with the landlord is not sufficient, hence need of the landlord is not proved.