The court established that the need of a landlord's family member, such as a son, can be considered the need of the landlord for eviction purposes, and rejected the distinction between residential and non-residential buildings for eviction based on personal necessity.

M.M.Kumar, J.

1. This is tenants petition filed under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (for brevity, the Act) challenging judgment dated 2.6.2004 passed by the Appellate Authority, Jind. The tenant-petitioner has been evicted on the ground of personal necessity as envisaged by Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the Act and the Appellate Authority has reversed the judgment dated 3.8.2002 passed by the Rent Controller.

2. Brief facts of the case necessary for disposal of the instant petition are that the landlord-respondent filed ejectment petition against the tenant-petitioner seeking his ejectment from the demised shop under Section 13 of the Act. According to the averments made in the petition, the demised shop was let out to the tenant-petitioner w.e.f. 1.4.1996 at a monthly rent of Rs. 1250/- p.m. plus house tax. The grounds of non payment of rent, subletting, material impairment of the demised shop and personal necessity of the landlord-respondent for establishing his son for starting electronics business were pleaded.

3. On the stand of the tenant-petitioner, the grounds of non payment of rent, subletting, material impairment and personal necessity were not accepted and the ejectment petition was dismissed by the Rent Controller. However, on appeal filed by the landlord-respondent the ground of personal necessity set up by him was accepted and the ejectment order against the tenant-petitioner has been passed. The Appellate Authority recorded the findings that there are four shops in the building bearing Municipal No. 598/10. Two of the shops are in possession of Subhash Kumar and Anil Kumar sons of the landlord-respondent. The third shop is in possession of Krishan Kumar who is the brother of landlord-respondent. The fourth shop is required for Sushil Kumar another son of the landlord-respondent who is unemployed and wishes to open electronic business. He is married and have three children. The Appellate Authority has accepted the explanation of Sushil Kumar that in February, 1996 he was doing the business of electric goods but on account of illness of his son who used to suffer from epilepsy fits, he had to give up that business. His son has now been cured in January, 2000. The deposition of tenant-petitioner Zile Singh that Sushil Kumar is already running the shoe business has also been discarded by the Appellate Authority by observing as under; -

".......Respondent No. 1 Zile Singh (RW-2) does not dispute that Anil, Subhash and Sushil Kumar are the sons of petitioner Om Parkash. His deposition is that Sushil Kumar is running a shoe business in the shop which is adjacent to the demised shop while the third shop is in possession of Subhash and Anil and the fourth is in possession of Krishan Kumar. It is, thus, not a disputed position that one of the four shops is in occupation of Krishan Kumar (brother of the petitioner) and one is the demised shop and in one of the shops business of shoes is being run while the fourth is also in occupation of the sons of the petitioner. 1 find force in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant that income tax papers (Exs.A7 to A9) are part of government record and there is no reason to disbelieve them. According to these documents, the business in the name of M/s Bhola Sales Agencies is being run by Subhash (and not by Sushil Kumar). There is again no evidence to controvert the stand of the petitioner that his son Sushil Kumar is married having three children and is unemployed and wants to set up his independent business....."

4. On the basis of documentary as well as oral evidence, the Appellate Authority found that the demised shop is bona fide required by the landlord-respondent for the business of his dependent son and the tenant-petitioner is liable to ejectment on that ground.

5. Mr. B.R. Gupta, learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner has raised three submissions before me: firstly that the petition filed by the landlord