Vinod K. Sharma, J.@mdashThis revision petition is directed against the order dated 9.2.2008 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Ambala Cantt., as affirmed by the learned appellate authority, ordering the eviction of the petitioners from the premises in dispute.
2. The respondent-landlord sought eviction of the petitioners on the ground of personal necessity so as to establish the business of his son and daughter-in-law, who are doctor/veterinary doctor. Necessary pleadings in terms of Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act were made therein. The landlord by leading cogent evidence proved his personal bona fide necessity.
3. Concurrent findings of fact have been recorded by the learned authority under the Rent Act holding, that the premises in dispute were needed bona fide by the respondent-landlord for his use and occupation.
4. The petition was contested on the ground, that the second petition was not competent, as the earlier petition filed by the respondent-landlord for eviction on the ground of personal necessity was dismissed. In support of this contention the learned counsel for the petitioners had placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in M/s. D.N. Metal Industries v. Chaman Lal, 2003(1) RCR 551.
5. The learned authorities under the Rent Act did not accept this contention for the reasons, that the petition was filed after 17 years of previous petition under the changed circumstances. In order to hold that second petition was competent, the learned Rent Controller as well as the learned appellate authority relied upon the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Harbilas Rai Bansal and another v. State of Punjab, 1996(1) R.R.R. 69 :1995(2) RCR 672 and the judgments of this Court in Ram Gopal v. Babu Singh, 2009(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 671: 2010(1) HLR 234, Jawahar Lal v. Dewan Chand, 2008(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 218: 2008(2) RCR 254, Shanti Devi and others v. Madan Khosla, 1997(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 172 : 1997 HRR 412, Krishan Lal Sood v. Sharda Sharma, 2008(1) R.C.R. (Rent) 2: 2008(1) RCR (Civil) 253 and Sardari Lal v. Smt. Swaran Lata, 2003(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 216 : 2003 HRR 653.
6. The second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners was, that the petition was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as the tenancy was inherited by the LRs of Bishan Singh, who was inducted as original tenant.
7. This plea was considered and rejected by the learned Rent Controller and appellate authority for the reason, that two of the sons of deceased-Bishan Singh were impleaded as party, and it was proved that one son was having separate business, whereas the premises in dispute were in possession of only one son as sole proprietor.
8. The learned Courts held, that the petition could not be said to be bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as only one of the legal heirs of late Sh. Bishan Singh was in possession of the tenanted premises exclusively.
9. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the learned Courts below wrongly held that bona fide requirement was proved without looking into the fact that the pleaded bona fide requirement was for the son/daughter-in-law, who were well-settled in Panchkula and, therefore, there was hardly any reason for them to leave Panchkula to set up their practice at Ambala, especially when their family was well-settled in Panchkula.
10. This plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted, as concurrent finding of fact was recorded, that son and daughter-in-law were residing as licencee at Panchkula and not as owners of the building, therefore, had no right to continue in Panchkula.
11. Even otherwise, it is well settled law, that it is for the landlord to decide as to where he has to set up business, and it is not for the Court or tenant to direct as to where landlord should set up his business, when on failure to occupy the tenanted premises in pursuance of the order passed, the tenant has a remedy under the Act to claim back the possession.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioners also contended, that two applications moved by the petitioners for leading additional evidence were wrongly rejected.
13. This plea again is misconceived. The very purpose of moving two applications for additional evidence was merely to delay the proceedings, and were rightly rejected.
14. For the reasons stated above, the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the learned Rent Controller as well as the learned appellate authority does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
No merit.
Dismissed.
