GHANSHYAM DASS AGGARWAL Vs. NITYA NAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M. No. 17197-CII of 2015 C.M. is allowed subject to just exceptions. Filing of certified copy of order dated 12.03.2015 passed by the Rent Controller, Narnaul is dispensed with. C.R. No. 5424 of 2015 Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 12.03.2015 passed by the Rent Controller, Narnaul, whereby petition under Sec. 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 preferred by the respondent-landlord for eviction of the petitioner-tenant was allowed, appeal against which preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 14.05.2015.

(2.) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the eviction from the demised premises, which is a shop, was sought by the respondent-landlord primarily on the ground of personal necessity, which both the Courts below have found to be correct. He states that these findings, as recorded by the Courts below, cannot sustain in the light of the fact that the respondent-landlord has two other shops adjacent to the shop in question. Not only this, the respondent was owner of other two shops in the Anaj Mandi, which he had sold about 7-8 months prior to the filing of the eviction petition. Keeping in view these facts, it cannot be said that the need on the part of the respondent is bona-fide and genuine. That apart, he contends that there are two other shops along with the shop of the petitioner and qua them also, eviction petitions have been filed but the same are still pending. As has been projected in the petition, the intention is to use all these shops for the purpose of the sanitary and marble shops. The purpose by vacating one of the shops, as in the case of the petitioner, when petitions for eviction qua two other shops are pending would not be served and, therefore, the Courts have proceeded wrongly to consider and decide the eviction petition of the respondent-landlord isolatedly. He, on this basis, contends that the present revision petition deserves to be allowed by setting aside the impugned orders.

(3.) Since a caveat has been filed by the respondent-landlord, I have heard the counsel for the respondent. The caveat stands discharged.