DR. OM PARKASH GARG Vs. BUDHI PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, whose eviction has been ordered by the appellate authority under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short, the Act) in terms of section 13 (3-A), impugns the said order primarily on the ground that this provision is not applicable to the facts of the case and the judgment of this Court in Himant Ram v. Smt. Jamna Bai, 1982 2 RCR(Rent) 92 pronounced subsequent to the passing of the impugned order, does not lay down the correct law. It is primarily on account of this later contention of the petitioner that the matter has come before us.

(2.) It is the admitted position that the petitioner was a tenant in the demised shop under late Shri Jagan Nath, father of the respondent landlord. Jagan Nath died on January 11, 1977. Subsequent to that the shop in question fell to the share of the respondent by way of a family settlement amongst the heirs of deceased Jagan Nath and a decree to that effect was passed by the civil Court on April 26, 1979. Thereafter, the respondent sought the ejectment of the petitioner on various grounds but it is only in the light of the above noted provision that the claim of the respondent has been accepted by the appellate authority though initially the same, as already indicated, had been dismissed by the Rent Controller vide his order dated November 5, 1981 on the ground that the respondent's case was not covered by the said provision. A conclusive finding has, however, been recorded by both the subordinate authorities that on the date of death of Jagan Nath, that is, January 11, 1977, the respondent landlord was a minor and he needed the premises in question for his personal use, i.e. to carry on the business of book-binding and stationery. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to point out any infirmity in this finding.

(3.) His contention, however, is that in the light of the above provision, only a minor son of a landlord who was a member of the Armed Forces of the Union of India, can on latter's death get the demised premises vacated within three years of his attaining majority. According to the learned counsel the minor son of a deceased landlord who was not a member of the Armed Forces, cannot get the eviction of a tenant under the above noted provision. We see no merit in this stand of the learned counsel in the light of the plain language of sub-section (3-A) which reads as follows :-