CR No.2173 of 2011 (O&M) -1- ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.2173 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:03.05.2011. Madan Lal Dhiman ...Petitioner Versus Naval Sood ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Avnish Mittal, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. The tenant is in revision against the orders of the Courts below by which an application filed by the landlord under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 [for short “the Act”] has been allowed in respect of the tenanted premises i.e. the ground floor towards southern side of property No.5502/05/01 situated at Nicholson Road, Ambala Cantt. Broadly, the case set up by the landlord is that the demised premises comprises of two rooms measuring about 22'x12' and 12'x10' one behind the other separated by pardah wall which was required by the landlord for occupation of his son Abhinav Sood who was about 18 years of age and a student of B.Com. 1st year at the time of filing the eviction petition. He wanted to settle his son by opening a restaurant in the demised premises as well as the adjoining shop situated towards northern side. He alleged that he will remove the intervening wall in between both the shops and in order to seek vacation of CR No.2173 of 2011 (O&M) -2- ***** the adjoining shop, which is in possession of Shadi Lal, a separate eviction petition was also filed simultaneously. It was also alleged that the demised premises is centrally located near Nigar Cinema surrounded by number of hotels and commercial establishments and is most suitable one to start the business of fast food restaurant. He had got some portion lying vacant behind the demised premises in the shape of a narrow street, which can be used for the purpose of kitchen for restaurant business. In reply, the tenant had alleged that he took the demised premises @ `200/- per month which has been increased from time to time and is presently paying `900/- per month. He also alleged that the landlord has no intention to set up a fast food restaurant in the demised premises, rather his intention is to get the whole building vacated as a result of which he has filed another ejectment petition against Shadi Lal in respect of the adjoining shop. However, he admitted that the demised premises is situated near Nigar Cinema which is at a distance of about 250 yards from the demised premises. On the pleadings of the parties, the issues were framed by the learned Rent Controller. The landlord examined himself as PW1 and his son as PW2 besides leading the documentary evidence, whereas the tenant examined Santosh Kumar as RW1, Pardeep Saini as RW2, Puran Chand as RW3 and himself as RW4 and led documentary evidence as well. The learned Rent Controller, after appreciation of evidence, held the requirement of the landlord to be bona fide. In respect of the other issue that the demised premises being a part of the residential building cannot be got vacated for non-residential purposes, the learned Rent Controller had observed that the tenant cannot question the status of the building to be residential so as to deny the landlord the benefit of the same very purpose for which it was being used by the tenant. In nut shell, vide its order dated 09.11.2010, the eviction petition was allowed by the learned Rent Controller with costs and the tenant was directed to vacate the demised premises within 3 months. Aggrieved against the order of the learned Rent Controller, the tenant filed statutory appeal in which he reiterated the grounds taken before the learned Rent Controller. The learned Appellate Authority also dealt with the argument raised by learned counsel for the tenant that as to whether the CR No.2173 of 2011 (O&M) -3- ***** demised premises, which is a part of the residential building, can be got vacated for non-residential purposes. In respect of the bona fide necessity, it was argued before the learned Appellate Authority that the son of the landlord had become an Advocate and started practice, therefore, the question of his doing business does not arise. It was held that the son of the landlord was studying in B.Com. when the eviction petition was filed and was not supposed to sit idle during the pendency of the eviction petition, therefore, he qualified as an Advocate and started practice. In case he wants to start his business, then he would make his own arrangements according to law. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on 05.02.2011 by granting only one month's time to the tenant to hand over the vacant possession to the landlord. In this revision petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that since the bona fide requirement was shown to be of the son of the landlord, who has now become an Advocate and has started practice, therefore, he cannot start business without surrendering his license to the Bar Council from where he has obtained it. In this regard, learned counsel for the landlord has submitted that the tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord as to how he would use the demised premises and the son of the landlord was not an Advocate when the eviction petition was filed, rather he was just a student of B.Com. 1st year who had gradually passed his L.LB. during the pendency of the eviction petition as he would not sit idle at home and wait for the decision of the eviction petition to get possession from the tenant of the demised premises. There is no dispute that if the son of the landlord wants to start the fast food restaurant business, then he has to act in accordance with law insofar as the Advocates Act, 1961 is concerned, but for that reason the eviction petition cannot be dismissed because the intention of the landlord is not yet to be doubted about the purpose for which he has sought eviction of the tenant from the demised premises. Thus, I do not agree with the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard and the same is thus rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the demised premises though is a shop, but it is a part of the residential building, therefore, it cannot be got vacated for non-residential purposes. I am afraid that this CR No.2173 of 2011 (O&M) -4- ***** argument cannot be accepted because the demised premises was let out to the tenant for non-residential purposes and the landlord is seeking eviction of the tenant for non-residential purpose only and not for the residential purpose. Hence, the second argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is also rejected. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and hence, the same is hereby dismissed though without any order as to costs. May 03, 2011 (Rakesh Kumar Jain ) vinod* Judge