TMI Blog2006 (2) TMI 705X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h March, 1979, the respondent along with his four sisters, became the owner of the said tenanted premises. He was an employee of Hero Honda Motors Limited. He retired from service having attained the age of superannuation. One year after his retirement, he filed an application under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 ('the Act') for eviction of the appellant from the shop in question on the ground of his bona fide personal requirement, i.e., for the purpose of running wholesale business in Ayurvedic medicines. The said application was dismissed by the Rent Controller holding that the bona fide requirement of the respondent in respect of the non-residential premises has not been proved and moreov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jeevan Kumar and Ors. AIR1985SC796 somewhat different note was struck. The question recently fell for consideration before a Three Judge Bench of this Court in Rakesh Vij v. Dr. Raminder Pal Singh Sethi and Ors. reported in AIR2005SC3593 wherein this Court upheld the ratio laid down in Harbilas Rai Bansal (supra) stating: We allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court, declare the abovesaid provisions of the amendment as constitutionally invalid and as a consequence restore the original provisions of the Act which were operating before coming into force of the amendment. The net result is that a landlord under the Act can seek eviction of a tenant from a non- residential building on the ground that he requires ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s owner of the shop in dispute is not only beyond pleading but is also devoid of truth. Since the petitioner is not the sole owner of the shop in dispute, therefore, the petitioner's version that the shop in dispute is required solely by him for his personal use and occupation for running a wholesale business of Ayurvedic Business appears to be a concocted version because the petitioner has no where stated that his other four sisters who are also the owner of the shop in dispute have consented him to use the shop in dispute for his own use and occupation. 6. The appellate Authority although should have dealt with the said question, had otherwise considered the matter from all aspects. He had taken note of the fact that the landlord w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he entitlement of the body of co-owners to eject the tenant comes to an end by act of parties or by operation of law. 8. A suit filed by a co-owner, thus, is maintainable in law. It is not necessary for the co- owner to show before initiating the eviction proceeding before the Rent Controller that he had taken option or consent of the other co-owners. However, in the event, a co-owner objects thereto, the same may be a relevant fact. In the instant case, nothing has been brought on record to show that the co-owners of the respondent had objected to eviction proceedings initiated by the respondent herein. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant to the effect that before initiating the proceedings, the appellant was require ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
