ASHOK KUMAR & SONS Vs. VIKAS MITTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment dated 28.02.2007 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Ambala, under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction), Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), dismissing the appeal of the present petitioners against the order of eviction dated 24.08.2006 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Ambala Cantt.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the landlord-respondents who are the real brothers filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the Act against the present b petitioner-tenants for eviction from a shop No. 4452, situated at the Ground Floor, Gur Mandi, Ambala Cantt. The eviction was sought on two grounds : (i) non-payment or rent and (ii) personal necessity of the landlords for carrying on the business of scientific goods in the demised shop. The landlords pleaded that the accommodation with at the first and the second floor is for residential purpose, though in one of the Halls at the first floor they are carrying on their business. It is pleaded that landlord No. 1 is married and has two children, where as landlord no. 2 is also of marriageable age. It was stated that they have six sisters who are married and oftenly visiting them and the residential accommodation with them on the first and the second floor is insufficient. It is also pleaded that they need to shift the business in the shop under the tenancy of the present petitioners. Another plea raised is that the tenants are already in occupation adjoining shop bearing shop No.4451 situated in the same place. The eviction petition was resisted by the present petitioners on a number of grounds including that the landlords have sufficient accommodation at the first and the second floor to meet their requirement, both residential and commercial. The learned Rent Controller has framed, as many as six issues. The main, issue is issue No. 2. The landlords have led evidence to establish that the accommodation at the first and the second floor where they arc residing and carrying on their business of scientific goods, is not sufficient because of the site of the family and the fact that their six sisters are also visiting them oftenly. It appears from the judgment impugned that during the pendency of the eviction petition, landlord No. 2 also got married. On the basis of the evidence, the learned Rent Controller has recorded a categoric finding that the accommodation at the first and the second floor was insufficient for the family of the landlords. It also recorded a finding that the tenants have an alternative adjoining shop in the same place and the landlords have established their business and they need the demised shop for their personal necessity. Consequently, a decree for eviction was passed vide order dated 24.08.2006. The petitioner-tenants challenged the aforesaid order before the learned Appellate Authority who has dismissed the appeal while concurring with the findings of fact recorded by the learned Rent Controller.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenants and gone through the impugned judgments carefully.