VED PARKASH Vs. SANJAY ADLAKHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for setting aside the order dtd. 16/1/2019 passed by the Rent Controller, Faridabad, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 16 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of a Local Commissioner has been dismissed.

(2.) In brief, the facts are that the respondent herein filed a petition under Sec. 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 for eviction of the petitioner from Shop No.4, forming part of House No. 2A/12, BP, NIT, Faridabad, on the ground of bonafide necessity as he as well as his son wanted to open an office of tour and travel with the consent of other co-owners.

(3.) During the pendency of the eviction petition, the petitioner/tenant filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of a Local Commissioner on the ground that a huge area behind Shop No.4 in House No. 2A is lying vacant and this area can be used by the respondent for running his business. It was further submitted that the fact of the area being lying vacant can be ascertained by a Local Commissioner after inspecting the property bearing No. 2A/12 BP, NIT, Faridabad with regard to existing position.