Important Points1. An eviction suit filed by a co-owner is maintainable in law. It is not necessary for the co-owner to show before initiating the eviction proceeding that he had taken option or consent of the other co-owners.2. In an eviction proceedings on bonafide requirement from a non-commercial premises, the landlord is not required to show that he had experience in running the business.3. An application for eviction on bonafide requirement of a non residential premises is maintainable under the provisions of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act.

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.—Leave granted.

2. The father of the respondent herein was the owner of a shop in which the appellant was inducted as a tenant on 1st April, 1972. The monthly rent payable in relation to the said tenanted premises was Rs. 700/-. The original landlord, the father of the respondent having died on 5th March, 1979, the respondent along with his four sisters, became the owner of the said tenanted premises. He was an employee of Hero Honda Motors Limited. He retired from service having attained the age of superannuation. One year after his retirement, he filed an application under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (‘the Act’) for eviction of the appellant from the shop in question on the ground of his bona fide personal requirement, i.e., for the purpose of running wholesale business in Ayurvedic medicines. The said application was dismissed by the Rent Controller holding that the bona fide requirement of the respondent in respect of the non-residential premises has not been proved and moreover he had not been able to show consent of his sisters in his favour in that behalf. An appeal preferred thereagainst was allowed by the Appellate Authority on a finding that he proved his bona fide requirement. In the revision petition filed before the High Court the appellant raised a contention that an application for eviction on bona fide requirement of a non-residential premises was not maintainable.

3. It is not in dispute that this Court as also the Punjab & Haryana High Court declared such a provision to be unconstitutional.

The High Court opined :

"Still further the learned counsel further argued that eviction on the basis of personal requirement is not available in respect of non-residential building. He has placed reliance upon the Full Bench judgment of Delhi High Court reported as Satyawati Sharma Versus Union of India and another - 2003(1) R.L.R. 91.

However, I am bound by the judgment of the D.B. of this Court in State of Haryana Versus Ved Parkash Gupta and others. - 1999(1) R.L.R. 689, wherein the provision of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 have been struck down and consequently, the landlord is entitled to seek eviction of the tenant from the non-residential building. In view of the above judgment the reliance of F.B.’s Judgment of Delhi High Court is not tenable."

4. We may notice that this Court in Harbilas Rai Bansal vs. State of Punjab and Anr. [(1996) 1 SCC 1] held such a provision to be unconstitutional, whereas in Gian Devi Anand vs. Jeevan Kumar & Ors. [(1985) 2 SCC 683] somewhat different note was struck. The question recently fell for consideration before a Three Judge Bench of this Court in Rakesh Vij vs. Dr. Raminder Pal Singh Sethi & Ors. reported in (2005) 8 SCC 504 wherein this Court upheld the ratio laid down in Harbilas Rai Bansal (supra) stating :

"We allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court, declare the abovesaid provisions of the amendment as constitutionally invalid and as a consequence restore the original provisions of the Act which were operating before coming into force of the amendment. The net result is that a landlord - under the Act - can seek eviction of a tenant from a non-residential building on the ground that he requires it for his own use."

5. In view of the afore-mentioned decision of this Court, we are not called upon to answer the said question.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant faced with the said decision, however, submitted that whereas a clear finding of fact was arrived at by the Rent Controller that the respondent had failed to prove his bona fide requirement in relation to the said premises in view of the fact that his sisters did not give any consent for starting a business in the said shop, the Appellate Authority did not delve deep into the matter. Our attention in this behalf has been drawn to the following findings of the Rent Controller :

"The third gr