LAWS(P&H)-1997-5-122

VED PARKASH GUPTA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On May 01, 1997
VED PARKASH GUPTA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is stated to be owner of Shop No. 59 Ward No. 7 situated in the main bazar of Shahabad Markanda of district Kurukshetra. As per the averment made in the petition he retired from the Military Engineering Services and thereafter filed a petition Under Section 13 of the Haryana urban (Control of Rent) and Eviction Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') for getting the shop in question vacated and one of the grounds taken up was that after retirement from the Army he has been temporarily residing in Ambala. for the proper education of his sons but after they have passed out he required this building for his personal and bona fide necessity. This ground was however negatived by the Rent Controller on the plea that it was not available with regard to a non-residential building and accordingly dismissed the ejectment application vide order dated 7. 2. 1995. The appeal carried to the appellate authority was also dismissed. The petitioner has accordingly filed the present writ petition claiming that the classification between non-residential and residential building created by Section 13 (3) (a) of the Act inasmuch as that ejectment on the ground of personal necessity was confined only to residential building, was violative of Article 14 of Constitution and hence was liable to be struck down.

(2.) NOTICE of motion was issued on this case and a reply has also been filed on behalf of the respondent i. e. the State of Haryana as also the tenant.

(3.) AS against this, Mr. Chetan Mittal the learned counsel appearing for the tenant has urged that a distinction had to be drawn between the Haryana Act and the Punjab Act and as the Haryana Act did provide for the ejectment of a tenant from a non-residential building on the ground of personal necessity of the landlord in certain situation, the judgment of the Supreme Court had no applicability. In this connection he had stated that in Section 13 (3-A) of the Haryana Act it was provided that this benefit could be given to a landlord of a non-residential building provided he had retired or has been discharged from the armed forces of the Union of India or to a minor son at the time of death of the deceased landlord.