LEKH RAJ Vs. PHAGUNIYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord is in revision against order of the Appellate Authority dated 28.11.2009 by which order of the Rent Controller dated 29.1.2009 has been reversed and the eviction petition has been dismissed.

(2.) In brief, the landlord filed eviction petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction), Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act) against the tenant alleging that initially the demised premises (shop) was let out to one Bhoora son of Sharma Dass at a monthly rent of Rs.600/- per month. The tenant died as a bachelor oh 3.11.1999 and after his death, his mother inherited the tenancy rights. The landlord sought her eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent from 1.10.2000 to 31.12.2002 at the rate of Rs.600/- per month, amounting to Rs. 16,200/-, ceased to occupy the shop in question for a continuous period of more than four months without reasonable cause and for personal use and occupation to start the business of selling tea and eatables. It was alleged that the petitioner has retired from service on 28.2.2002. He wanted to start his own business of selling tea and eatables in the shop, which is part of his residential building. The respondent, after appearance, tendered the entire rent with interest and cost as assessed by the Court. It was denied that the demised premises was kept locked after the death of original tenant Bhoora and there is no question of any personal need of the landlord, who has another vacant room in his possession. Rejoinder was filed in which the averments made in the written statement were denied and that of eviction petition were reiterated. On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed on 6.10 2003, which reads as under:

(3.) The landlord examined himself as PW-1 and Ronki Ram, Clerk, M.C. Ambala as PW-2 whereas tenant examined herself as RW-1 and Kesar Dass as RW-2. She tendered into evidence copy of the site plan of the said house No.849-A/2 as mark 'X' and closed her evidence. No evidence in rebuttal was led. The learned Rent Controller discussed all the three grounds of eviction separately in which grounds of arrears of rent and ceased to occupy was not found in favour of the landlord and were thus decided against him but the ground of personal necessity was decided in his favour and the eviction petition was allowed with the direction to the tenant to vacate the demised premises within two months of the passing of the order. The order of the Rent Controller was challenged only by the tenant wherein the Appellate Authority reserved the finding on the issue of personal necessity on the ground that the demised premises is a non-residential premises, which is a part of the large residential building, therefore, it is residential building, which cannot be got vacated by the landlord for the nonresidential purposes.