Mohan Lal v. Sarla Devi And ORS

C.R. No. 2900 of 2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 2900 of 2015 (O&M) Date of decision : 21.03.2018 Mohan Lal

...Petitioner

versus Sarla Devi and ors.

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

Present:

Mr. Gautam Kailey, Advocate for Mr. Ram Pal Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) C.M. No. 8786-CII-2015 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 10 days in filing of the revision pettion is hereby condoned. The application stands disposed of accordingly. C.R. No. 2900-2015 Petitioner (tenant)- Mohan Lal has filed the present civil revision against the findings recorded by Ld. Rent Controller, Sonepat and the Appellate Authority, Sonepat, vide orders dated 25.03.2014 and 17.12.2014, respectively, whereby he has been ordered to be evicted from the demised premises, as shown in site plan Ex PW2/A. A perusal of the impugned order(s) show that appellant while appearing as R.W.1 himself admits that he is having another shop being run under the name and style of New Shahnaz Beauty Parloru and the factum of Gaurav Arora 2018.05.01 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

C.R. No. 2900 of 2015 visiting card/Ex P-3 qua the said shop is also admitted in his cross examination. R.W.1 further admits that the sons of the petitioner are practicing advocates in District Courts. He has further admitted that there is no other building except the present one belonging to the petitionerlandlady in the area. Thus, the admission of the appellant himself was sufficient enough to return a finding that the land lady has the bona fide requirement for settling her sons who wants to run their office from the demised premises.

Reference has rightly been made to a judgment of this Court in a case of Sunita Rani v. Ramesh Chander 2008(4) PLR 143 wherein it has been held that profession of lawyer is a business and a lawyer is entitled to evict tenant from non-residential premises on the ground of bona fide requirement.

The above said judgment was rightly held to be directly applicable to the facts of the present case and hence the petition stands dismissed.

21.03.2018 (RITU BAHRI) G Arora JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Gaurav Arora 2018.05.01 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh