Judgment

Mr. Arun Monga, J.

Petition herein is for setting aside impugned order dated 30.11.2018 passed by learned Rent Controller, Narnaul whereby eviction petition filed by respondent No.1 herein under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short ‘Act of 1973’) was allowed and revisionist was directed to handover vacant possession of shop in question within a period of two months. Further petitioner sought setting aside of impugned order dated 07.12.2022 whereby appeal filed by revisionist-tenant against aforesaid eviction order was dismissed.

2. Brief case, as pleaded in the petition is that respondent No.1-landlord filed eviction petition under Section 13 of the Act of 1973 seeking ejectment of Revisionist/tenant from the demised premises i.e., shop. Revisionist is tenant since 1996 and in 2006, rate of rent was agreed as Rs.1,500/- per month which was increased to Rs.2,000/- in the year 2010 excluding house tax. Period of tenancy has elapsed and now revisionist is continuing in the capacity of statutory tenant. There are many other commercial and residential premises in the ownership of respondent No.1-landlord. Both sons of respondent-landlord are running a barber and beauty parlour shops and are earning. There is no personal necessity of respondent No.1-landlord in respect of shop in question. On the other hand, revisionist-tenant has no other shop to run his business.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the record.

4. The relevant extract of the order passed by the learned Rent Controller reads thus:

“21. After going through the evidence of parties and the documents placed on record, this court is of the view that it is for the landlord to decide as to the requirement on the ground of personal necessity and to choose the location and the tenant cannot dictate his terms to the landlord in selecting a particular location while discarding the other for starting the business. It has been laid down in number of authorities that the personal necessity of the landlord includes the necessity of his family members. This court is also of the view that shop in question is required by the petitioner for establishing business for his son and a tenant nowhere can dictate this fact to the petitioner that as the son of petitioner is assisting the petitioner, therefore, he is settled in that business and there is no need to set up any independent business in the demised premises. This court is therefore of the view that shop in question is bona fidely required by petitioner for his son and there is nothing wrong if parents want to settle their grown up son by establishing a business for him.

22. The respondent has pleaded this fact before the Court that the petitioner has sold two shops situated adjacent to the shop in question and as such his claim is not maintainable. The petitioner was duly cross-examined on this point. In his cross-examination he has stated that earlier he was having three shops and he has sold one shop approximately 10 years ago. He has also stated that the shops adjoining the shop in question are not in his ownership as the same are in the ownership of his brother. PW2 Sube Singh has also stated this fact in his cross-examination that the shop which was sold by the petitioner is situated on Nizampur Road and that shop was sold many years ago. Even respondent no.1 while appearing as RW1 has admitted this fact in his cross-examination that except for these two shops including the shop in question there is no other shop in the ownership and possession of the petitioner. He has stated that he does not know in which year the other shops were sold by the petitioner. RW3 Kailash Chand has also admitted this fact in his cross-examination that except fo