INDER PAL SINGH Vs. RAJWANTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's petition filed under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 challenging concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the courts below holding that the demised shop is required by the son of the landlord-respondents, who has completed his diploma in D. Pharma. and intends to open his business of medicines. The afore-mentioned findings have been recorded in paras 14 and 15 of the judgment, which read as under : "Now coming to another contention, the statement made by the appellant while appearing in the witness box before the learned Rent Controller as RW-4 is quite relevant. In his cross-examination he has admitted in unequivocal terms that the respondents require the property for their personal use as there is a bona fide necessity. Besides this, the respondents had categorically pleaded in their petition in the following words :-

(2.) MR . Gurdev Singh, learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner has drawn my attention to the language of Section 13(3)(a) and urged that there are specified grounds for eviction of the tenants, which are confined to specified categories of professionals and none else. According to the learned counsel, if the other family members are permitted to seek eviction under the general provision provided by Section 13(3)(a)(i) then the provisions of Section 13(3)(a)(ii) would be rendered otiose. The learned counsel has further argued that the afore-mentioned provision is confined to residential area alone and not to that of commercial area.

(3.) THE other argument that the demised shop is required by the son of the landlord-respondent is confined only to residential area, has also not impressed me because the judgment of Supreme Court in Harbilas Rai Bansal v. The State of Punjab, 1995(2) RCR(Rent) 672 (SC) : (1996-1)112 The Punjab Law Reporter 227 as followed by this Court in Ved Parkash Gupta v. State of Haryana, 1997(2) RCR(Rent) 160 (P&H) : (1997-2)116 PLR 775 has done away with the distinction between the residential and commercial area for the purpose of personal necessity because the distinction was found to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, I do not find any substantial force in the argument as well.