Ajay Tewari, J. - (1.) This petition has been filed against the concurrent orders of the Court below ordering the eviction of the petitioners from shop No.3 on the ground of personal necessity of the landlord.
(2.) The landlord had pleaded that he required the shop in question for his younger son to start a confectionery and bakery business. In the written statement the petitioner -tenants had taken the plea that adjacent to the shop in question there were two more shops in the possession of one Darshan Lal against whom also he had initiated eviction proceedings. Further the landlord-respondent had three more shops on the first floor. Moreover under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction)Act, 1973 the requirement is that the landlord should not have in his possession any building in the urban area concerned and once he had those shops on the first floor he could not maintain the petition for eviction. No replication was filed and even in the examination in chief the respondent did not refer at all to the three shops on the first floor. It is also not disputed that during the pendency of the present petition the shops under the tenancy of Darshan lal were got vacated. Both the Courts having accepted the petition, as mentioned above, the tenant is before this Court.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-tenants has firstly argued on the plea of non-disclosure. He asserted that the respondent-landlord did not disclose about the fact that he had in his possession shops on the first floor Developing this argument on a slight tangent learned counsel has argued that even if there is no absolute requirement of mandatory disclosure, yet where the landlord has other premises which as per him are not suitable then it is required of him that he should aver this fact also and give the reason why they are not suitable so that the tenant can lead positive evidence to the contrary. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that there is no pleading that the son for whose benefit the shop was being sought did not possess or had not vacated any other building in the urban area concerned or that he was dependent upon his father.;