UMAR DEEN Vs. SADHU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's petition filed under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for brevity), the ('Haryana Rent Act') challenging concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below holding that the landlord-respondent requires the demised premises bona fidely for the use of his two sons, namely, Jagdish and Satpal in order to carry on the business of Goldsmith therein. In support of their findings, both the courts below have referred to the statement of AW-1 Sadhu Ram landlord-respondent who has stated that he was engaged in the work of Goldsmith in the shop adjacent to the shop in question alongwith his two sons, namely, Jagdish and Satpal. The aforementioned statement was not controverted by the tenant-petitioner when the landlord-respondent had asserted that the shop in his possession is very small and not sufficient for their business. On the basis of absence of cross-examination of the landlord-respondent on the aforementioned statement, an adverse inference has been drawn against the tenant-petitioner and reliance has been placed in that regard on a judgment of this Court in the case of Mehnga Singh v. Gurdial Singh and others, 2004(1) RCR(Civil) 338 (P&H). The statements of AW-2 Vijay Pal and AW-3 Jagdish fully corroborated the version of the landlord-respondent. The stand of the tenant- petitioner that sons of the landlord-respondent are living separately and working independently has not been accepted in view of the evidence produced by the landlord-respondent showing that their ration card depicted only one address i.e. DE/115, Ward No. 5, Pataudi. The aforementioned evidence has been considered sufficient to show that Jagdish and Satpal sons of the landlord- respondent were living together. On the basis of the evidence, the Rent Controller has recorded the following findings :-

(2.) THE other two shops which are owned by the landlord-respondent have also been taken into account by the Courts below. In one of the shop another son of the landlord respondent, namely Khem Chand has been found to be running a Tea Shall and the other one is on rent. In any case, those shops have been found to be situated on Tehsil road, which would not be suitable for running the business of Goldsmith as compared to the demised shop. The reason which has prevailed upon the Courts below is that the demised shop is more suitable because it is part of the residential house and is more safe for transacting the gold business. The shops on the Tehsil road are not suitable because there is lot of open area and less abadi. After considering the aforementioned aspects, the Rent Controller has recorded the findings which read as under :-

(3.) MR . Lokesh Sinhal, learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner has made an attempt to persuade me to accept his sole submission that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Harbilas Rai Bansal v. State of Punjab, 1995(2) RCR(Rent) 672 (SC) : (1996-1)112 PLR 227 (SC) would not apply to the provisions of the Haryana Rent Act. It may be appropriate to mention that judgment of the Supreme Court in Harbilas Rai Bansal's case (supra) had struck down the distinction between the 'residential property and the 'commercial property' for the purposes of personal necessity. Learned counsel has also submitted that once the judgment in Harbilas Rai Bansal's case (supra) is inapplicable to the Haryana Rent Act, then a commercial property cannot be made subject matter of an ejectment petition on the ground of personal bona fide necessity.