ATMA RAM MITTAL Vs. ISHWAR SINGH PUNIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted. The appeal is disposed of herein after hearing counsel for both the parties.

(2.) The appellant-landlord filed a suit for possession in the Civil Court of Hissar in Haryana. The respondent is the tenant in the shop situated at Raj Guru Market which had been rented out to the respondent in 1978. The suit was filed on the basis that the respondent was in arrears of rent from 1st December, 1981 to 31st May, 1982 and the tenancy of the respondent had been terminated by giving him notice. The suit was filed for recovery of possession on the termination or expiry of the period of tenancy. It was filed because of Section 1(3) of the Haryana Urban (Control) of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Act was passed with the object to control the increase of rent of certain buildings and rented land situated within the limits of urban areas and the eviction of tenants therefrom. For our present purpose, it would suffice if we bear in mind two relevant provisions. Section 1(3) of the Act provides as follows:

(3.) Section 13 of the Act deals with the eviction of tenants and sub-section (1) thereof provides that the tenant in possession of a building or a rented land shall not be evicted therefrom except in accordance with the provisions of that section. The section thereafter enumerates the statutory grounds for eviction upon which eviction is permitted which incidentally are more or less similar statutory grounds all over the country.