Rajesh Bindal, J. - (1.) THE Legal Representatives of tenant Ram Karan are before this Court against the order of the Appellate Authority whereby his eviction has been ordered from the premises in dispute on account of personal necessity.
(2.) THE shop in question was rented out to Shri Ram Karan Dass on June 1, 1979, after his death, he is now represented by his Legal Representatives. The eviction was sought by the respondent/landlord on the ground of personal necessity to start the business of general merchandise and kiryana in retail and wholesale. It was stated by the landlord that he has sufficient experience to carry on business of general merchandise and kiryana and wanted to start the same in the demised premises as the same is most suited premises for the purpose, which is situated at Railway Road, Narwana. He further submitted that he has only two shops on Railway Road and both are rented. The eviction petition was contested by petitioner/tenant on the ground that landlord is 70 years of age. The need is not bonafide. Further it was submitted that he owns a number of shops and many of those are on rent with various tenants. The Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment petition filed by respondent/landlord opining that there was no bonafide need for setting up the business. In appeal before the Appellate Authority, landlord succeeded. On appreciation of evidence on record, learned Appellate Authority found that it is not in dispute that respondent/landlord is not in possession of any vacant premises and further that he was not doing business. In case even at the age of 70 years, he wanted to run business and lead active life, which he left some years back on account of his eye ailment, the need set up by the respondent/landlord cannot be held to be a mere desire. The finding recording by the Rent Controller that sufficient reason as to why the respondent/landlord stopped doing business were not there was reversed by the Appellate Authority holding that minute evidence was not required to be led in this regard. Even if at some point of time, landlord had stopped doing business, it cannot be assumed that for all time to come, he cannot start a business and to keep him busy and cannot open a shop.
(3.) FURTHER it needs to be noticed that during the pendency of appeal tenant Ram Karan had expired and now he was represented by his Legal Representatives.;