SUMER CHAND Vs. MELA RAM DHARAM SARUP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision has been filed by the landlord to impugn the concurrent findings recorded by the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority in a petition filed under Sec. 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') by him vide which he had sought the eviction of the respondenttenant from Shop No. 583 situated at Lower Bazar, Kalka, District Panchkula. Parties shall be referred to by their original positions in the rent petition.

(2.) In brief the case of the petitioner-landlord may be noticed as thus; Shop No. 583 situated at Lower Bazar, Kalka, District Panchkula, consists of two parts. A part of the aforementioned shop had been rented out to the respondent-tenant at the rent of Rs.700.00 per annum to begin with (hereinafter referred to as the demised premises) whereas in the other part, the landlord was running a confectionary shop in the name and style of M/s Sandeep Confectionary. On 24/9/1998, a compromise was effected between the parties and the rent was enhanced to Rs.150.00 per month w.e.f. 1/10/1998, which was to be enhanced at the rate of 10% every three years. The landlord after constructing his house over shop No. 583 had been residing therein. The landlord sought eviction of the tenant from the demised premises primarily on the grounds that (i) the tenant had not paid rent to the landlord from 1/4/2020 to 31/12/2020 @ Rs.200.00 per month; (ii) that the demised premises was required by the landlord for his personal use as he wanted to expand his business and also settle his two married sons, namely Sandeep and Vinay. It was also claimed that the landlord was not in occupation of any other commercial building within the municipal area of Kalka, except the one mentioned in the petition, nor had he got any other premises vacated since the enforcement of the Act, without any reasonable cause.

(3.) The respondent-tenant in his written statement did not dispute the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He took the defence that the entire shop marked by letters ABCDEFGH bearing House Tax No. 583 (ground floor), to begin with, had been in the occupation of respondent No.1- firm i.e. M/s Mela Ram Dharam Sarup. In the year 1965, the landlord got the portion marked by letters EFGHIJ vacated for his personal necessity. Thereafter, the landlord and his son namely Sandeep started their business of confectionary in a part of the shop No. 583 while the remaining portion marked by letters ABCDEJIH continued to remain with the tenant. Subsequently, the landlord let out the portion marked by letters EFIJ to 'Regal Jeans'. In the year 1998, the tenant yet again vacated the portion marked by letters CDEJ, where the son of the landlord, namely Vinay was now running his business of Auto Spare parts. It was alleged that all the four sons of the landlord were well settled as the landlord along with his sons was running the business of auto spare parts in the name and style of Aman Autos as well as a confectionary shop in the name and style of Sandeep Confectionery. Besides this, the landlord was also a supplier of Vita and Verka Milk. It was further alleged that the landlord had got some of his shops vacated and let out to other tenants while some shops were still lying vacant and were in his possession. It was asserted that the landlord was a 75 year old man who had failed to bring to the fore any bona fide necessity to get the demised premises vacated as he was actively involved in the business of all his four sons and had been functioning in an advisory capacity.