JAI NARAIN Vs. SURESH KUMAR ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned Appellate Authority under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act') whereby the petitioner has been ordered to be evicted from the shop in dispute.

(2.) IT is the case of the respondent that he is the landlord of the shop constructed in a portion of the property bearing No. 1113-A, Railways Road, Panipat and that this property was let out to the present petitioner 7/8 years ago. It was stated that he is a qualified diary technologist and he wants to start his own consultancy services in the field of dairy at Panipat, which is close to Delhi and Karnal, to cater to the needs of various industries in Delhi and Karnal. Thus, it is alleged that the shop in dispute is the most suitable place for starting consultancy services and that he has not vacated any shop after coming into force of the Act, and has no other shop having this location, where the present shop is located to be suitable for consultancy services.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the landlord has not disclosed that the first floor of the premises in dispute is available to him and that such premises are not suitable for his use and occupation and, therefore, the learned Appellate Authority has made out a new case for the landlord, which was not even pleaded.