STATE OF HARYANA Vs. VED PARKASH GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the Letters Patent Appeals No. 494 of 1997 and 544 of 1997 arise from the same judgment and have been filed by respondents No. 1 and 2, respectively in C.W.P. No. 4161 of 1996 reported as (1997-2)116 P.L.R. 775. These are being disposed of by this common judgment. Respondent Ved Parkash Gupta filed the aforesaid writ petition against the appellants in these two Letters Patent Appeals claiming that the classification between non-residential and residential buildings created by Section 13(3)(a) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 1973 Act) confining ejectment on the ground of personal necessity only to residential buildings is illegal and unconstitutional. Respondent Ved Parkash Gupta is the owner of a shop situated in the main bazar of Shahbad Markanda, Distt. Kurukshetra. He has averred in the writ petition that he bona fide requires the said shop for his personal use because after taking retirement from Military Engineering Service, which is a part of the defence force, as Assistant Engineer, he intends to carry on his vocation in the demised premises. The petitioner has further averred that he is a licensed surveyor for the purposes of all motor accidents and is also approved valuer of Haryana Financial Corporation. He had filed a petition under Section 13 of the 1973 Act for getting the shop in question vacated and one of the grounds taken therein was that he required the shop for his personal necessity and bona fide use. The ground of personal necessity was not taken into consideration by the Rent Controller on the ground that the said ground was not available qua commercial buildings. For other grounds also, the petition was ordered to be dismissed by the learned Rent Controller vide judgment dated 7.2.1995. Appeal against the said judgment was also dismissed by the appellate authority.

(2.) The petitioner filed the writ petition which was decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment dated 1.5.1997. The learned Single Judge was pleased to allow the writ petition and strike down the word "residential" appearing in sub-clause (a) of clause (3) of Section 13 of the 1973 Act. As stated earlier, these Letter Patent Appeals arise from the said judgment.

(3.) We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Section 13(3) of the 1973 Act reads as under:-