VINOD K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) PRESENT revision has been filed against the order of ejectment passed against the petitioner under Section 13(3)(a)(iv) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973, which reads as under :- "13(3)(a)(iv). The tenant has already in his own possession a residential building or subsequently acquires possession of, or erects, such a building reasonably sufficient for his requirement in the urban area concerned;"
(2.) THE learned Rent Controller and the learned Appellate Authority on the basis of evidence have recorded a finding of fact that the tenant-petitioner has purchased three shops in Sikka Market, Kaithal within the urban area of Municipal Committee, Kaithal wherein tenanted premises itself is situated and now enjoying possession of the same and running the business of spare parts which are sufficient for his business. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the courts below have wrongly placed reliance on the judgment of Harbilas Rai Bansal v. The State of Punjab, 1996 HHR 1 for ordering the ejectment of the petitioner. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the said judgment Hon'ble Supreme Court has only permitted the eviction of the tenant from a commercial building on the ground of personal necessity in the absence whereof no order of ejectment could be passed. This contention is totally misconceived.
(3.) THE East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amending) Act, 1956 was quashed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court holding the same to be ultra vires. It was in the said Act that in sub-clause (iv) the word 'any building' was substituted by the word 'any residential building'. In view of the quashing of the said Act the original Act came into force and accordingly, the landlord became entitled to eject the tenant from any building in case the tenant acquires accommodation of his own in the area concerned.;