OM PARKASH Vs. SUBHASH CHANDER AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner (tenant)-Om Parkash has filed the present civil revision against the order dated 21.03.2017 whereby application moved by the petitioner-tenant for leading additional evidence to prove the photographs of the shop of Munish Kumar son of the respondent-landlord, namely, Subhash Chander has been dissmed by the learned Rent Controller, Panipat.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that applicant/respondents pleaded that the petitioner/landlord has sought their ejectment under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, on the ground that he does not have any other shop in his possession and requires the same for his son Munish. The son of the petitioner is running a medical shop in the first floor and has rented out the ground floor as per his own admission in the evidence. Now they have come to know he is running a shop on the ground floor by the name of the Regal Pharma and using the first floor as a godown. Similarly, the petitioner has denied that he does not have any vacant shop in his possession whereas in building No.149/3 several vacant shops are there in his possession. The respondent has taken the photographs of the shop of Munish son of the landlord and other shops therefore, his examination is necessary in additional evidence which is relevant to the decision of this case. It is further pleaded that previously an application for appointment of Local Commissioner was filed which was dismissed by the court vide order dated 11.08.2016 and now they have come to know that shop is being run on the ground floor which belongs to Munish and the licence of the son of the petitioner is required to be proved from the office of District Drugs Inspector, Panipat, which is necessary for the just decision of this case. Hence the petition before the Rent Controller.

(3.) Upon notice of this application, landlord filed the reply taking preliminary objection with regard to non-maintainability of the present application and and application being filed just to delay the decision of the present case. The landlord sought eviction of the respondent's on the ground that his son is running a business on Ist Floor shop situated near Salarganj Gat and sanchin and Akash their other tenants have already vacated their premises and their shops are not sufficient for running the business. His son has met with an accident, therefore, he is not in a position to go up and down stairs, whereas the shop at the ground floor situated at Salarganj Gate is in possession of tenant namely Aman Kumar who is running photography business.