SANTOSH KUMAR AND ANR Vs. KANTA GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners(tenants) are aggrieved against the order dated 19.05.2012(Annexure P-3) whereby their application for leading additional evidence has been rejected by the learned Rent Controller, Jind.

(2.) Brief facts for proper adjudication of the present revision are that petitioners(tenants) moved an application in the main rent petition filed by the respondent(landlord) under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban Control of (Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 for eviction from the shop on the ground of personal necessity for starting clinic of his son for practicing as a doctor. In the application for additional evidence moved by the tenant, it was alleged that the son of the landlord i.e. Sunil Kumar is residing in Rohini and practicing as ENT specialist. It was further stated in the said application that Sunil is doing practice and is also working as a senior resident(doctor) at Lady Harding Medical College and Sucheta Kriplani Hospital in New Delhi. It was further averred in the application that wife of Dr. Sunil namely Deepti is also employed in Maharaja Agarsen Institute of Technology, Rohini, Delhi as Assistant Professor. It was stated that Nehal daughter of Dr. Sunil has also got admission in Lancer Convent Play School, Rohini, Delhi. Therefore, the tenant wanted to draw a conclusion from all these facts that the son of the landlord and his family are already well settled in Delhi and therefore, they will not come back to Jind at all.

(3.) Hence, it was stated that these facts which came to the knowledge of the tenant at a later stage should be allowed to be brought on record by examining various officials of the concerned hospitals and schools so that the plea of bonafide necessity can be demolished.