SUSHIL KUMAR Vs. SUSHILA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a civil revision filed by Sushil Kumar and his father Rattan Lal and has been directed against the order dated 1.2.2000 passed by the appellate authority, Jagadhari, who affirmed the order dated 31.8.1996, passed by the Rent Controller, Jagadhari, who allowed the petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') of Shushila Devi, landlady and directed the petitioners to vacate the demised premises.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Sushila Devi filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act for the ejectment of the petitioner from the residential house bearing No. 122-B/R, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar, and it was alleged by the respondent-landlady that she is the owner of the demised house. She let out a portion of the demised house shown in blue colour in the site plan to one Satish Kumar many years ago on a monthly rent of Rs. 650/- plus house tax. Thereafter, some portion shown in red colour was let out to Sushil Kumar, petitioner No. 1, on a monthly rent of Rs. 800/- plus house tax. Somewhere in the month of January, 1992, Satish Kumar vacated the tenanted premises in his occupation. However, Sushil Kumar forcibly occupied that portion in the absence of the landlady and without her consent. When the landlady came to know, she protested to Sushil Kumar. The landlady wanted to shift to Yamuna Nagar but at that time, her younger son Shashi Kant Mittal was planning to got to Behrain on deputation with the company where he was employed. The landlady was required to stay with her daughter-in-law and grand children at Delhi. It was agreed upon by the petitioner No. 1 that he would vacate the whole house on return of her son from Behrain. The rent for whole of the house except the room which was already in occupation of the landlady, bathroom and the latrine, which was being used by Satish Kumar, were retained by the landlady and the remaining portion was rented out to petitioner No. 1 on a monthly rent of Rs. 1600/- per month. The said settlement was arrived at with the intervention of the respectables. The landlady has further alleged that petitioner No. 1 has failed to pay rent to her w.e.f. 1.4.1992 to 31.7.1994 amounting to Rs. 44,800/- along with house tax and interest. As such, he is liable to be ejected from the demised premises on the ground of non-payment of rent. It was also the case of the landlady that she required the premises in question for her personal necessity and for the necessity of her family members. She had only one room in her occupation besides the use of one bathroom and latrine. Her younger son Shashi Kant Mittal is marred and has two children. The landlady has no other house in her possession nor she has vacated any house after the commencement of the Act. The respondent-landlady had two sons and two daughters. They are married and having children. All the children of the landlady visit her and only one room is not sufficient for her needs and status. Shashi Kant Mittal, her younger son, also wants to start his own work at Yamuna Nagar. It was also pleaded by the landlady that petitioner No. 1 Sushil Kumar, without her written consent, has sub-let a portion of the property to petitioner No. 2 his father Rattan Lal for the last about two years. Thus, Sushil Kumar is liable to be ejected from the premises in question on this ground also. The petitioners were requested several times to vacate the premises but to no effect.

(3.) A rejoinder was filed to the written statement in which the landlady controverted the allegations of the written statement by reiterating those made in the rent petition. On the above pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues for the disposal of the rent petition :-