ASHOK KUMAR Vs. OM PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in the present revision petition is to the order of ejectment passed by the authorities below under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the ground of bona fide use and occupation of the premises in dispute by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the landlord').

(2.) THE landlord sought the ejectment of the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the tenant') from the ground floor portion consisting of a shop with store, verandah, passage, stair-case and a godown. It is the case of the landlord that he is owner of double storyed building. In the first floor portion, the elder son of the landlord is residing along with his family members, whereas the tenant is in possession of the ground floor i.e. a shop portion at a monthly rent of Rs. 700/- excluding house tax, since the year 1982. It is the case of the landlord that he has two sons, namely Ved Prakash and Arun Kumar. Ved Prakash is elder son. Both are married and are having children. Both are working with the landlord in shop No. 72 situated in the Ward No. 6, Purani Anaj Mandi, Sohana, but the sons are not pulling well with the landlord. The eldest son Ved Prakash has a separate mess and started his separate residence on the first floor portion of the demised premises. One shop measuring 8 feet x 8 feet, constructed in the front side verandah of the shop situated in Purani Anaj Mandi is in occupation of one Devki Nandan, tenant. It is the case of the landlord that he has decided to settle his elder son Ved Prakash in the demised premises and the younger son Arun Kumar in the shop measuring 8 feet x 8 feet, now in possession of the tenant for which the eviction of the tenant has been sought as well.

(3.) THE learned Rent Controller found that the demised premises consists of double storyed building. The first floor of the building is a residential property in which the elder son of the landlord, namely, Ved Prakash, is residing, whereas the ground floor consists of a shop, verandah and a godown. It was found that the son of the landlord is working in shop as an employee and also receiving sufficient amount in lieu of the duties and thus, it was found that the landlord is in bona fide need of the said property, for the purposes of running separate business of his elder son Ved Prakash and consequently, the Rent Controller passed an order of eviction. The learned Appellate Authority affirmed the order of ejectment passed by the learned Rent Controller. The Appellate Authority also declined an application filed by the tenant for production of additional evidence i.e. an order of ejectment in respect of the premises in occupation of Devki Nandan.