NARENDER KUMAR Vs. SURENDER KUMAR ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) While questioning the correctness of the concurrent orders of eviction passed against the petitioners (tenants), this revision petition under Sec. 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1973 Act') has been filed.

(2.) The premises in dispute is a shop. Dr. S.K.Arora filed a petition claiming that the tenanted premises are required for his son, who wants to run a clinic after completing his Diploma in Radio Diagnosis. It has come on record that Dr. Moksh Arora was previously working in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi, as Sr. Resident Doctor.

(3.) The tenants, while contesting the petition, claim that another property belonging to the landlord is lying vacant. In order to prove his case, the landlord appeared as PW9, whereas Dr. Moksh Arora, appeared as