JAGDISH RAI CHANDNA Vs. SWARAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this common judgemnt both the revision petitions namely Civil Revision Nos. 1437 and 1438 of 1997 can conveniently be disposed of together.

(2.) THE relevant facts are that respondent Swaran Dass is the landlord. He had filed two petitions for eviction against the petitioner. The same had been consolidated. In the first petition for eviction, the respondent-landlord claimed that he requires the premises for his own occupation and has no other residential accommodation available. He was employed in the office of State Bank of India and was lastly posted at Delhi. He retired in February, 1983. All his relatives are at Panipat and, therefore, he intends to settle at Panipat. It was asserted that petitioner has not paid the arrears of rent from February, 1986 at the rate of Rs. 375/- P.M. besides house tax, water and electricity charges. In the second petition for eviction two grounds of eviction were taken in addition to what has been referred above. The same do not survive for consideration and were that petitioner has impaired the value and utility of premises and is a nuisance to the locality. The petitioner has contested the eviction petitions. It was not disputed that agreed rent is Rs. 375/- P.M. including house tax. The water tax and electricity charges are being paid directly by him to the authorities. The liability to pay the house tax was denied. Plea was raised that whole house had been let to the petitioner but later the respondent-landlord on 23.9.1984 illegally occupied a portion of it. It was denied that the respondent bonafide required the suit premises at Panipat. After retirement the respondent is doing business in Delhi where he is residing. Similarly, the second petition for eviction was contested.

(3.) AT the outset learned counsel for the petitioner urged that since the Appellate Authority is a creation of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 and no cross objections are specifically prescribed under the provisions of that Act, the Appellate Authority was in error in allowing the cross objections to be filed. He strongly relied upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Daya Chand Hardayal v. Bir Chand, 1987(1) Rent Control Reporter 306. It was held :-