Punjab and Haryana High Court: A revision petition filed against the order of Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority evicting the petitioner-tenant from the property concerned, was dismissed by a Single Judge Bench comprising of Surinder Gupta, J.
The respondent-landlord filed a petition under Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1973 for eviction of the tenant from his property on grounds of personal bona fide necessity of expanding his business. Learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority under Rent Act, Faridabad, allowed the petition of the landlord and ordered eviction of the tenant. Aggrieved, the tenant filed the present revision.
The High Court considered the submission of the tenant that the landlord did not produce any documents to show that his business was flourishing and therefore he needed to expand his business. The Court rejected such a submission holding that the need of the landlord is to be seen from his point of view. The fact that the landlord was carrying on his business in the adjoining shop was not disputed, and if he now wanted to expand his business, he could not be denied his right. Accordingly, finding no fault with the order of eviction passed against the tenant by the Rent Controller and upheld by the Appellate Authority, the Court dismissed the revision petition. [Super Light House v. Sanjay Kumar, 2018 SCC OnLine P&H 699, dated 27-4-2018]
