NARESH KUMAR Vs. LALIT MOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's petition filed under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (for brevity, 'the Act') challenging concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below holding that the landlord-respondents are entitled to vacant possession of the demised shop as Parmod Kumar landlord-respondent 4 who is enrolled as an Advocate requires the shop for the purposes of his office space. It has been proved on record that there is no other house/shop available for the landlord-respondent for the purpose of running his legal practice.

(2.) THE ejectment petition under Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the Act was filed originally by Smt. Maya Devi along with Parmod Kumar her son. However, during the pendency of the petition before the Rent Controller, Maya Devi died who was substituted by her legal heirs, namely, landlord-respondents 1 to 3. After detailed examination of the oral as well as documentary evidence, the Rent Controller recorded the conclusion that the necessity of Parmod Kumar landlord-respondent 4 is bona fide as the demised shop is required by him to run his office. It has been proved that he has neither any other shop in District Bhiwani nor he has vacated any one after the year 1949. The factum that Parmod Kumar landlord-respondent 4 is a practicing advocate at District Courts, Bhiwani has been proved by the statement made by landlord-respondent 4 when he appeared as PW1 and another advocate Shri Joginder Singh PW3. It has also come in evidence that there was oral partition during the life time of Sita Ram, the father of landlord-respondents and the demised shop fell to the share of Parmod Kumar. The findings recorded by the Rent Controller have been affirmed by the Appellate Authority after reconsideration and review of oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the parties. The view of the Appellate Authority in this regard reads as under :

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel. I am of the considered view that this petition is devoid of any merit and is, thus, liable to be dismissed. It has concurrently been found by both the Courts below that Parmod Kumar who is an advocate does not have any other space for running his legal practice and under Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the Act, a landlord is entitled to claim possession of the demised premises seeking issuance of section to a tenant in cases of professionals who require the same for their own use as an office or consulting room for his son. Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the Act reads as under :-