SHOBHA RAM Vs. SHAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed by the tenant who is aggrieved against the judgment of the Appellate Authority, Gurgaon which has ordered his eviction from the tenanted premised in question which is a shop bearing M.C. No. 376/3 situated in Sadar Bazar, Gurgaon at a monthly rent of Rs. 80/- per month including house tax. The case of the landlord/respondent was that the petitioner-tenant was in arrears of rent since 01.04.1995 to 30.04.1997 and had not paid the same and was in a habit of not paying the rent and paid the rent only after institution of rent petitions and on the ground of personal necessity and use and occupation as office for his son, Vinod Kumar Gupta, Advocate, Gurgaon was also pressed into action and it was pleaded that the petitioner himself is also an Advocate and practising in Court of Tis Hazari, Delhi and wants to shift his office to Gurgaon in order to establish his son, Vinod Kumar Sharma in the profession. The landlord alleged that he was not occupying any nonresidential building in the urban area of Gurgaon. It was submitted that his elder son, Krishan Kumar, is running animal food business under the name and style of Pyare Lal Nathi Mal. Similarly, it was alleged that the petitioner owned a residential house No. 403/3 situated in Manohar Street, Roshanpura, Gurgaon which is shown in red colour and it was found insufficient for the family members of the petitioner as the youngest son of the petitioner has established his transport booking business in the Baithak of the said house falling in the back of shop in question. Accordingly, it was pleaded that the landlord has not vacated any building in the urban area after commencement of the Act and the son of the landlord, Vinod Kumar Gupta, Advocate had no other building in the urban area of Gurgaon nor he has any other vacant non-residential premises for establishing the office of his son, Vinod Kumar Gupta.

(2.) The petition was contested on the ground that Vinod Kumar Gupta was carrying out joint business with his elder brother, Krishan Kumar and it was incorrect that the landlord was not occupying any other residential premises in the urban area of Gurgaon for establishing his son, Vinod Kumar Gupta. The two rooms constructed on the terrace of the shop in question and the adjoining shop towards the south were still in occupation of the petitioner and the same could have been used as office of Vinod Kumar Gupta if he actually carried on the profession of a lawyer. It was contended that the premises have been illegally constructed during the pendency of the suit but the same faced Sadar Bazar, Gurgaon and the landlord has got ancestral shop-cum-office in front to the main gate of his residence in Bazar Roshanpura, Manohar Street, Gurgaon as shown in the photographs and the shop-cum-office had got cabin and it was sufficient for the requirement of the office including the other two rooms on the first floor in the Sadar Bazar, Gurgaon and the petitioner has been letting out the two rooms as godown for adjoining shopkeepers and getting handsome rent and it was denied that his eldest son, Krishan @ Krishan Kumar was carrying out the business of animal food alone in the adjoining shop shown in blue colour and it was alleged that the business had been closed for last 1-1/2 years and in that place, business of suitcases and bags etc. was being carried out jointly by the two brothers, Krishan @ Krishan Kumar and Vinod Kumar Gupta. The said firm, M/s. Pyare Lal Nathi Mal was in partnership of the two brothers since the date the landlord had started practising in the Tis Hazari Court. The youngest son, Anil Kumar was employed as booking clerk in Ajay Good Transport Company, near Gurudwara, Gurgaon for the last several years. So, it was incorrect that Anil Kumar was doing the business of transport booking in the Baithak of the house in Sadar Bazar, Manohar Street, Roshanpura, Gurgaon. In fact, photographs have been relied upon to show that the same was a shop-cum-office with a wooden cabin therein and with a sign board in the name of Sham Lal Gupta, Advocate and not in the name of the transport company. It was also alleged that the residential portion had been incorrectly shown in the site plan and that there was sufficient accommodation for the family members of the petitioner.

(3.) On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Rent Controller, Gurgaon: