PAWAN KUMAR Vs. PUSHPA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenants' appeal against the order of the Appellate Authority, Kaithal dated 28.7.2003 dismissing their appeal against the order of the Rent Controller dated 24.5.2002 ordering their eviction.

(2.) THE respondents had filed an ejectment petition under section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent Eviction) Act, 1973, (for short the Act), seeking eviction of the petitioner-tenants from the shop in dispute situated in the Main Bazar, Kaithal. The ejectment was sought on four grounds i.e. (i) arrears of rent; (ii) sub-letting; (iii) material alterations and (iv) personal necessity. Grounds (i) and (ii) were not pressed before the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller on appreciation of evidence led before her reached the conclusion that the landlady-Sunita Rani required the shop in dispute for her personal necessity and that the southern point of the shop in dispute had been sublet to petitioners No. 2 and 3. Consequently, she ordered the eviction of the petitioners on these two grounds.

(3.) MR . Sanjay Bansal, appearing on behalf of the petitioners had challenged both the findings. He contended that the findings recorded by the authorities below are perverse inasmuch as the relevant material has not been taken note of. According to him, the eviction petition was only a device to get the shop vacated as there was no bonafide necessity proved by the landladies. He contended that the case set up by them was that the shop was required for setting up business of the son of respondent-Sunita Rani. He pointed out that the eviction application had been filed on 14.10.1999 on which day Rahul Garg son of Sunita Rani was only a student of B.A. (Final). Thus, according to him, it could not be said that the shop was required for setting up his business. He further pointed out that Rahul Garg in his statement had deposed that he wanted to start a business of dealing in gems and stones for which purpose he had passed a course in gems and gems identification. The learned counsel pointed out that this was factually incorrect as Rahul Garg had failed in the said Course. Thus, it was contended that he was not in possession of the requisite experience and knowledge for starting the business of gems and stones. He further submitted that the authorities below have failed to take note of the fact that father of Rahul Garg was already running a jewellery shop and, therefore, he could easily work in that shop and engage himself in that business. Even otherwise, since Rahul was unmarried and living with his father who was already running a jewellery shop, it could not be said that he was not occupying any other shop within the meaning of Section 13(a)(i) of the Act. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in A.K. Veeragahava Iyengar v. N.V. Prasad, AIR 1994 SC 2357 : 1996(1) RCR(Rent) 268 (SC).