SHEO PARSHAD Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is in occupation of the premises since the year 1945, was ordered to be evicted. Faced with the judgment given by the Rent Controller, he has approached this Court through this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, so as to challenge the validity of Section 13(3-A) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973. The petitioner alleges that the provision regarding 'personal necessity' is vague. The landlord has not even disclosed the source of money so as to be able to run the business. The provision is violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Thus, clause (3A) of Section 13 of the 1973 Act deserves to be struck down.

(2.) WE have heard Mr. I.D. Singla, learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that even though the amendment was made in the year 1978 for the benefit of the tenant, the provision is actually being used for the benefit of the landlord. The phrase 'personal necessity' is vague. It is discriminatory and violative of the petitioner's right to carry on business. On these premises, the counsel prays that the provision should be struck down as being unconstitutional.

(3.) AS for the contention raised by the counsel, we find that the provisions of Section 13(3-A) of the 1973 Act are not vague. Clause (3-A) clearly stipulates that a landlord can seek the eviction of the tenant from a non- residential building, if his personal need is 'bonafide.' It is only when the claim is found to be well-merited that the Court can uphold the landlord's claim. What were the facts of the present case ? On what ground did the landlord seek the eviction of the petitioner ? What are the findings of the Court ? There is nothing on the record. The petitioner has withheld the information from the Court. However, even ex-facie, it cannot be said that 'personal necessity' is a vague expression. The 'text' has to be read in its 'context'. The Court has to examine the evidence and to see whether the need of the landlord is bonafide. The aggrieved party has the remedy of appeal and revision etc. The Legislature is not required to define every expression. 'Personal Use' is a term which is clear and understandable. When the need of the landlord is established, the Court has been empowered to order the eviction. The statute contains an in-built safe-guard and it does not suffer from the vice of vagueness.