INDIRA AND OTHERS Vs. RAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority allowing the petition filed by the respondent for evicting the petitioners from the shop in dispute on the ground of personal necessity for the use of his son as an office for practice as Chartered Accountant.

(2.) As per the case set up by the respondent, his son had become Chartered Accountant and started his office in one room of the ground floor of his residential house and, therefore, required the shop in dispute for setting up the office of his son. Both the Courts below having allowed the eviction petition, the matter, as stated above, is before this Court. Counsel for the petitioners has argued that in terms of Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (herein after referred to as "the Act"), it was mandatory for the respondent to have pleaded that his son was not occupying any other building within the same urban area and had not vacated it without sufficient cause. As per the counsel, there was no averment in the eviction petition in this regard because the son of the respondent was occupying a room on the ground floor which was more than sufficient for his office, more-so since in the area there were many other Chartered Accountants.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the respondent had mentioned in his pleadings the fact that his son had started his office in one room of the ground floor of the house. He has further argued that in these circumstances it cannot be held to be unreasonable that the respondent wanted the shop in dispute for that purpose and, therefore, the argument raised by counsel for the petitioner that a specific averment had to be made is neither here nor there. In this connection, it would be apposite to reproduce the relevant portion of Section 13 of the Act, which reads as under :-