RAJESH Vs. RAHUL NIRWANIA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents-landlords filed a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") to obtain the ejectment of the petitioner-tenant from the premises under his tenancy.

(2.) The averment, made in the context, was that the petitioner-tenant had ceased to occupy the premises for the statutory period. The plea was negatived by the learned Rent Controller. It, however, came to be allowed by the learned Appellate Authority. In obtaining the view aforementioned, the learned Appellate Authority drew sustenance from the record-based testimony of AW-1 Brij Lal, an official of U.H.B.V.N.L. It is vehemently argued by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that impugned finding is not sustainable in view of the fact that it is not supported by any material obtaining on the record. Reliance, placed by the learned Rent Controller upon the statement of AW-1 Brij Lal, is assailed by pointing out that the learned Rent Controller ignored the real import of the statement of that witness from consideration.

(3.) The plea raised deserved to be negatived. The reasons therefor are as under: