NARESH GOYAL Vs. HEMLATA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present Revision Petition, invoking provisions of Sec. 24 (5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rent Act"), has been preferred against judgment dtd. 4/1/2023 passed by Appellate Authority-III, Solan in Rent Appeal No. 4ADJ-II/14 of 2022, titled as Naresh Goyal Vs. Hemlata Sharma, whereby order of eviction dtd. 14/6/2022, passed by Rent Controller, Solan in Rent Case No. 20/2 of 2014, titled as Hemlata Sharma Vs. Naresh Goyal, ordering eviction of tenant from the demised preemies, has been affirmed.

(2.) For convenience, parties hereinafter shall be referred according to their status before the Rent Controller, i.e. respondent herein as landlord and petitioner herein as tenant.

(3.) Landlord preferred a Rent Petition seeking eviction of tenant from non-residential premises, on the ground that she was owner in possession of two storied building, first floor whereof was being used by her for residential purposes, whereas two shops in ground floor were rented out to two different persons, one shop to present tenant Naresh Goyal and another to Vineet Goyal. Landlord had preferred two different Eviction Petitions against both tenants on the ground that she and her husband alongwith their son Sanjeev, were intending to do business of readymade garments by using experience of her son in association with son and husband, for which both commercial shops were required by landlord and her family members for own use and occupation. Landlord, at the time of filing Rent Petition, in the year 2014 was 67 years old and her husband was 75 years old. There was no one to look after them, who were old and ailing and in these circumstances their son Sanjeev had to shift to Solan from Delhi, who earlier was doing the business of readymade garments in Mexico since 1997 till 2013 and had left the place to join the company of his parents to look after them because another son Sanjay Sharma was working in Nokia Siemens as Manager at Gurgaon and was residing there. It was further stated that landlord had not acquired any such building without sufficient cause within five years after commencement of the Act in the same urban area and was not occupying any other commercial building, except two shops referred supra and thus landlord was in bonafide need for the purpose of carrying out her own business as proposed.