The tenant appellant entered appearance and companytested the eviction proceeding denying the material allegations made in the application for eviction.
The case made out by the original landlord Mr. Om Prakash since deceased in his eviction petition can be narrated as follows The tenanted premises was let out to the tenant appellant in the year 1982 in which the appellant was carrying on the business of Commission Agent.
Again feeling aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority, a revision petition was filed by the appellant before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana which was dismissed by the impugned order affirming the findings of the Appellate Authority as well as of the Rent Controller, Gurgaon.
In spite of repeated reminders to the tenant appellant to vacate the tenanted premises, the tenant appellant having failed to vacate the same, the original landlord was companystrained to file the eviction proceeding against the tenant appellant.
The Rent Controller, Gurgaon, by his order dated 31.05.2004, had allowed the application for eviction inter alia holding that the original landlord had successfully proved his bonafide requirement of the tenanted premises.
Accordingly, the tenant appellant sought for dismissal of the eviction petition.
In his written objection, the tenant appellant had categorically denied that the respondent had any bonafide requirement for use and occupation of his son for starting a business of Commission Agent in the tenanted premises.
Feeling aggrieved by this order of the Rent Controller, an appeal was taken by the tenant appellant before the Appellate authority which affirmed the findings of the Rent Controller, Gurgaon and dismissed the appeal of the tenant appellant.
The case of bonafide requirement as pleaded by the original landlord was that the original landlord and his two sons were carrying on the same business as that of the appellant and as the original landlord had decided to settle his elder son Ved Prakash in the tenanted premises in the business of Commission Agent and the younger son Arun Kumar in another shop occupied by another tenant, he was companystrained to file the eviction petition on the ground of bonafide requirement and a separate eviction proceeding was also filed against the other tenant by the original landlord.
TARUN CHATTERJEE, J. Leave granted.
This appeal has been filed by the tenant appellant from the judgment and final order dated 5th of March, 2007 passed by the High Court of Punjab Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Revision Case No.3943 of 2005 whereby the High Court had dismissed the civil revision case and affirmed the order of the appellate authority as well as of the Rent Controller thereby directing eviction of the tenant appellant from a shop companystructed on the ground floor at Plot No.12, bearing Municipal No.179 a , Ward No.3, New Anaj Mandi, Sohna, District Gurgaon Haryana hereinafter referred to as the tenanted premises .
