JUDGMENT

Tarun Chatterjee, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been filed by the tenant/appellant from the judgment and final order dated 3rd of March, 2007 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Revision Case No.3943 of 2005 whereby the High Court had dismissed the civil revision case and affirmed the order of the appellate authority as well as of the Rent Controller thereby directing eviction of the tenant/appellant from a shop constructed on the ground floor at Plot No.12, bearing Municipal No.179 (a), Ward No.3, New Anaj Mandi, Sohna, District Gurgaon (Haryana) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘tenanted premises’).

3. The case made out by the original landlord Mr. Om Prakash (since deceased) in his eviction petition can be narrated as follows; The tenanted premises was let out to the tenant/appellant in the year 1982 in which the appellant was carrying on the business of Commission Agent. The case of bonafide requirement as pleaded by the original landlord was that the original landlord and his two sons were carrying on the same business as that of the appellant and as the original landlord had decided to settle his elder son Ved Prakash in the tenanted premises in the business of Commission Agent and the younger son Arun Kumar in another shop occupied by another tenant, he was constrained to file the eviction petition on the ground of bonafide requirement and a separate eviction proceeding was also filed against the other tenant by the original landlord. In spite of repeated reminders to the tenant/appellant to vacate the tenanted premises, the tenant appellant having failed to vacate the same, the original landlord was constrained to file the eviction proceeding against the tenant/appellant.

4. The tenant/appellant entered appearance and contested the eviction proceeding denying the material allegations made in the application for eviction. In his written objection, the tenant/appellant had categorically denied that the respondent had any bonafide requirement for use and occupation of his son for starting a business of Commission Agent in the tenanted premises. Accordingly, the tenant/appellant sought for dismissal of the eviction petition.

5. The Rent Controller, Gurgaon, by his order dated 31.05.2004, had allowed the application for eviction inter alia holding that the original landlord had successfully proved his bonafide requirement of the tenanted premises. Feeling aggrieved by this order of the Rent. Controller, an appeal was taken by the tenant/appellant before the Appellate authority which affirmed the findings of the Rent Controller, Gurgaon and dismissed the appeal of the tenant/appellant. Again feeling aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority, a revision petition was filed by the appellant before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana which was dismissed by the impugned order affirming the findings of the Appellate Authority as well as of the Rent Controller, Gurgaon. Be it mentioned herein that the original landlord, as noted herein earlier, died during the pendency of the Civil Revision case in the High Court and the present respondents were substituted in his place.

6. Before us, the pivotal issue that was seriously raised by the learned counsel for the appellant was as follows: -

(i) Whether the landlord would be entitled to evict his tenant from a non-residential premises on the ground of bonafide requirement under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) when Section 13 of the Act provides for eviction of the tenant only in case of residential building if the landlord requires it for his own occupation, and is not occupying another residential building in the urban area concerned and has not vacated such building without sufficient cause after the commencement of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 in the said urban area?

7. On the aforesaid issue, we have heard the learned counsel appearing f