NARINDER KUMAR AND ORS. Vs. SUBIT DUTTA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this revision, defendants have laid challenge to the judgment of Appellate Authority dtd. 28/5/2019, affirming the order of the Rent Controller dtd. 28/9/2018, whereby they were ordered to be evicted from the demised shop in a petition filed by respondent-landlord under Sec. 13(2)(i) and 13(3)(a)(ii) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (in short the 'Haryana Act').

(2.) Learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. Mukul Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners referring to Onkar Natth v. Ved Vyas, AIR 1980 SC 1218 (SC), Joginder Singh Sawhney v. Harbans Lal, 2003(2) PLR 242 (P&H), Randhir Singh Rohilla v. Rajbir, 2015(4) PLR 325 (P&H), Jaspreet Takhar v. Ghai Enterprises, 2013(1) PLR 765 (P&H), Baljit Kumar v. Ramesh Aggarwal, 2013(1) R.C.R. (Rent) 260 (P&H), Babli v. Kumari Ruchi Bansal, 2017(1) PLR 811 (P&H) and Thakar Dass v. Madan Mohan, 2018(2) Rent Law Reporter 593 (P&H), Banke Ram v.Shrimati Sarasvati Devi, 1977(1) RCR (Rent) 595 (SC), Manmohan Lal v. Shanti Parkash Jain, 2014(5) RCR 667 (P&H), Jatinder Kaur v. S.K. Dhaliwal, 2015(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 194 (P&H), Shankar Lal v. Madan Lal and others, 2011(1) R.C.R. (Rent) 139 (P&H) and Sec. 13(3)(a)(ii) of the Haryana Act, inter alia contends that both the Courts below failed to appreciate that it was mandatory for the respondent-landlord to satisfy the ingredients of this Sec. , which he failed. Therefore, eviction of the petitioners from the demised shop is bad in law. Respondent-landlord intentionally and deliberately concealed other properties owned by him and occupied by his son. From this angle too his eviction petition was liable to be dismissed. Lastly, he contends that it has come in the evidence that son of the respondent was practising as Advocate since the year 2005. Thus, eviction of the petitioners could not have been ordered, considering the provision of above Sec. , according to which a property can be ordered to be vacated in case son of landlord "immediately intends" to start practice.

(3.) Having given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court finds the instant revision completely devoid of any merit for the reasons to follow.