JUDGMENT :

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.

1. Present Revision Petition, invoking provisions of Section 24 (5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rent Act’), has been preferred against judgment dated 4.1.2023 passed by Appellate Authority-III, Solan in Rent Appeal No. 4ADJ-II/14 of 2022, titled as Naresh Goyal vs. Hemlata Sharma, whereby order of eviction dated 14.6.2022, passed by Rent Controller, Solan in Rent Case No. 20/2 of 2014, titled as Hemlata Sharma vs. Naresh Goyal, ordering eviction of tenant from the demised preemies, has been affirmed.

2. For convenience, parties hereinafter shall be referred according to their status before the Rent Controller, i.e. respondent herein as landlord and petitioner herein as tenant.

3. Landlord preferred a Rent Petition seeking eviction of tenant from non-residential premises, on the ground that she was owner in possession of two storied building, first floor whereof was being used by her for residential purposes, whereas two shops in ground floor were rented out to two different persons, one shop to present tenant Naresh Goyal and another to Vineet Goyal. Landlord had preferred two different Eviction Petitions against both tenants on the ground that she and her husband alongwith their son Sanjeev, were intending to do business of readymade garments by using experience of her son in association with son and husband, for which both commercial shops were required by landlord and her family members for own use and occupation. Landlord, at the time of filing Rent Petition, in the year 2014 was 67 years old and her husband was 75 years old. There was no one to look after them, who were old and ailing and in these circumstances their son Sanjeev had to shift to Solan from Delhi, who earlier was doing the business of readymade garments in Mexico since 1997 till 2013 and had left the place to join the company of his parents to look after them because another son Sanjay Sharma was working in Nokia Siemens as Manager at Gurgaon and was residing there. It was further stated that landlord had not acquired any such building without sufficient cause within five years after commencement of the Act in the same urban area and was not occupying any other commercial building, except two shops referred supra and thus landlord was in bonafide need for the purpose of carrying out her own business as proposed.

4. It was also stated that Tenant was owner of three storied building at Jaunaji Road, Solan, had taken five stores/shops on rent in Solan town out of which two were in Jaunaji Road, one in Kasai Galli and two Godowns in Sanatan Dharam Mandir Market Complex Solan and all these stores cum shops were near to the premises in reference and thus Tenant was having sufficient accommodation for his own occupation.

5. In response, Tenant had claimed that landlord was having four other shops in the same floor of the building in reference and thus was having sufficient accommodation to run her business as proposed and thus it was denied that the shop in reference was best suited for the business to be run by the landlord. It was contended on behalf of tenant that building owned by him is residential and was not located in the commercial area of Bazar with further averments that having rented accommodation for Godowns at various places, did not mean that tenant was having sufficient accommodation for running his business.

6. After taking into consideration pleadings and evidence on record, Rent Controller had passed eviction order against the tenant on the ground of bonafide requirement, for personal use and occupation.

7. In instant Revision Petition, it has been contended on behalf of tenant that both the Courts below have committed illegality by appreciating and preferring oral evidence over the documentary evidence by ignoring Ex. PW-2/B, which was showing that there were no Godowns, but shops were available with the landlord in the ground floor; that landlord did not appear in evidence