PAWAN KUMAR Vs. RAMJI DASS ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pawan Kumar, tenant has directed challenge against order dated 21.11.2014 passed by the appellate authority under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 ( in short "the Act") whereby appeal preferred by Ramji Dass, respondent/landlord was allowed, order dated 13.2.2014 passed by the Rent Controller, Rahtak was set aside and the application filed by the respondent/landlord for eviction of the petitioner from the demised premises i.e. three corners shop bearing No. 459/28 (part) situated at Model town, D-Park, Rohtak has been allowed on the ground of bona fide personal necessity of the respondent/landlord.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that initially, Jit Singh father of the petitioner had taken the shop in question on rent in the year 1994. After death of Jit Singh, petitioner is in occupation of the tenancy premises since 2000. He has challenged eviction order by raising two fold contention. It is argued that respondent Ramji Dass Arora is a pensioner and has sufficient income of his own pension as well as pension of his wife (since deceased) who was working as a teacher, therefore, plea of the respondent that the demised premises is required for re-constructing the entire shop including the tenancy premises and starting of business by his daughter-in-law to augment family income is misconceived.

(3.) Another submission made by counsel is that the petitioner is in possession of the property in question measuring few square feet for the past about 25 years and in case, the respondent is successful in getting the shop vacated, petitioner and his family would lose their only source of income.