CR No.3239 of 2008 - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.3239 of 2008 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 23.11.2009 **** Ramakant . . . . Petitioner VS. Sona Devi . . . . Respondent **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Kashmira Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. V.S. Rana, Advocate for respondent No.1 **** SURYA KANT J.(ORAL) (1). This revision petition is directed by the tenant against the order dated 05.10.2007 passed by the Rent Controller, Kaithal, whereby, in an eviction petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ ), he has been ordered to be evicted from the demised premises comprising a shop situated in Prem Nagar, New Subzi Mandi, Kaithal and which has been further upheld by the Appellate Authority, Kaithal vide its judgement dated 11.04.2008. (2). Respondent No.1 – the landlady sought the petitioner’s eviction, inter alia, on the grounds, (i) that the petitioner along with respondent No.3 – the alleged sub-tenant, are in the arrears of rent w.e.f. 01st March, 2003; and (ii) that she (landlady) requires the demised premises for the bona fide CR No.3239 of 2008 - 2 - use and occupation of her son, namely, Naresh Kumar who wants to start some business in the demised premises. It was specifically averred that neither the landlady nor her son have acquired or vacated any such building(s) in the urban area of Kaithal town after the commencement of the Act. (3). The Attorney of the respondent-landlady (Anand Parkash Gupta) as well as her son (Naresh Kumar) both deposed as PW1 and PW2 respectively, regarding the personal necessity of the respondent-landlady’s son, namely, Naresh Kumar. (4). Both the Courts have concurrently held that Naresh Kumar is married; having two children and has no independent business of his own. It has been found that Naresh Kumar wants to start the business of hardware and paints in the tenanted premises for which he does possess sufficient experience. (5). In order to disclose the claim of the respondent, the petitioner-tenant produced a copy of the Partnership Deed (Mark ‘A’) which suggest that Naresh Kumar is running partnership firm along with his brother Bal Mukand Gupta under the name and style of M/s. Garg Paints and Hardware Store, Kaithal. The petitioner-tenant further proved that the respondent-landlady and her son both have sold one shop to Prahlad Rai etc. vide Sale-Deed dated 11.10.1999. CR No.3239 of 2008 - 3 - (6). The aforesaid plea has been turned down by the Courts below after observing that merely because the son of the landlady is doing business in partnership, does not disentitle him from starting his own independent business. Similarly, the shop which was sold vide Sale- Deed dated 11.10.1999 was already in occupation of Mohan Sagar as a tenant and was sold to the sons of the said tenant. In other words, the said shop was not vacant or available to the respondent for starting the business by her son. (7). Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perusing the impugned orders. No meaningful arguments could be advanced on behalf of the petitioner- tenant to assail the concurrent finding of facts returned by the Courts below. It may be true that the son of the respondent, namely, Naresh Kumar is doing a business along with his brother to earn his livelihood but admittedly, he has his own family responsibilities and is entitled to start his own independent business. Similarly, the plea taken regarding availability of alternative premises has also been found to be factually incorrect for the reason that the shop sold in the year 1999 was already in occupation of the vendees. For the aforementioned reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned orders dated 05.10.2007 and 11.04.2008 and the revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (8). However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has to make some alternative arrangement to shift his business, he is permitted to retain the demised premises only upto CR No.3239 of 2008 - 4 - 30.11.2010, to which the counsel for the respondent- landlady fairly agrees, subject to payment of arrears of rent within one month and payment of future rent by 10th day of every calendar month. The petitioner-tenant shall submit an undertaking by way of an affidavit before the Rent Controller, Kaithal within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order to the effect that he shall hand over the peaceful vacant possession of the demised premised to the respondent-landlady or her authorized representative(s) on or before 30.11.2010. (9). Dasti. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 23.11.2009 vishal shonkar