RANJIT SINGH,J - (1.) THE petitioner sought eviction of respondent, Radhey Sham, from the shop in question which is statedly a part of residential house No. B-V-61 and Shop No. B-V-68 (Shop No. 388) located in the area West Bhatia Nagar, Yamuna Nagar. The ejectment of the respondent was sought on the ground that he is in arrears of rent with effect from 1.6.1996 to 30.9.1996 and that the premises is needed for bona fide use and occupation by the petitioner. It is pleaded that the petitioner was to retire w.e.f. 31.1.1997 and as such, wanted to do his business of hardware in the said shop. The shop, though part of residential portion, has been converted and as such, shall be considered as a part of residential house.
(2.) THE respondent contested the plea raised by the petitioner. As per the respondent, father of the petitioner was the owner of the shop, who had rented it out to him on 30.1.1973. The rate of rent then was Rs. 335/- per month inclusive of house tax. Gurdwayamal died in the year 1991-92 and bequeath this property in favour of his two sons, namely, Ravel Singh and Haveli Ram, debarring the other heirs including the petitioner. It is accordingly pleaded that the petitioner is authorised to receive rent but not the owner or landlord of the said property. It is also stated that the shop in question is not a part of the residential house and it is behind the shop in the office- cum-shop occupied by Avinash Bhatia. The case further is that this shop has no link with the residential house and is a part of 7 shops situated on southern side abutting the main road which is a shopping centre. As per the respondent, the rent was tendered in the Court with interest and costs and they are not liable to pay the house tax. The requirement of the petitioner for having this shop for his bona fide need is also denied. The right of the petitioner to seek eviction from the non-residential premises is also disputed. The case of the respondent further is that the petitioner has sufficient accommodation and has already sold four shops situated on the Workshop road and, thus, his need is not genuine or bona fide. It is accordingly prayed that his petition be dismissed. The parties, thus, went to trial on the following issues :- "1. Whether the respondent is liable to be evicted from the shop in question for non-payment of rent ? OPA 2. Whether the petitioner made the shop for personal use ? OPA 3. Whether the petitioner is not the landlord of the shop ? If so, its effect ? OPR 4. Relief." The issue regarding non-payment of rent was decided against the petitioner as the rent was tendered by the respondent. While deciding the issue relating to the personal use of the shop by the petitioner, the Rent Controller also went to the question whether the landlord can seek ejectment of a tenant from non-residential building or not. Relying upon the judgment of this Court, the Rent Controller concluded that the ground of bona fide necessity is available to the landlord for seeking ejectment of the tenant from the non-residential building as well. The Rent Controller thereafter found that the petitioner's need for the shop was bona fide as he was retiring on 31.1.1997 but held against him on the ground that condition under Section 13(3)(a) Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short, "the Act") relating to the requirement of law that the landlord was not occupying another building in the Urban Area concerned and had not vacated building without sufficient cause was not satisfied. It was noticed that the petitioner had himself admitted in his cross-examination that he alongwith one Iqbal had purchased a plot measuring 150 Sq.Yards and constructed 3 shops in the year 1982. One shop out of which was sold in the year 1991 and other two in the year 1995. These shops were situated in the Municipal Area City Yamunanagar and hence, it was found that the petitioner did not satisfy the condition imposed by Section 13(3)(a) of the Act. Accordingly, his prayer for eviction of the respondent was declined. The plea of the respondent, whereby he had challenged the ownership of the petitioner, however, was declined.
(3.) THE petitioner as well as respondent both impugned the judgment passed by the Rent Controller by filing appeal and cross appeal but both were dismissed by the Appellate Authority, finding no infirmity, illegality or irregularity in the view taken by the Rent Controller. The petitioner has, thus, filed the present revision petition.;