STATE OF HARYANA Vs. VINOD TAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State and Deputy Commissioner have invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 15 (6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), assailing the judgment dated 30.08.2007 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Hisar, thereby directing the eviction of the revisionist-tenant from the property in question.

(2.) The brief facts of the case, inter-alia, are that initially property in question, which is commonly known as Deputy Commissioner's house, was leased out by the landlord in the year 1905. The property in question was being used for the residence of the Deputy Commissioner, Hisar. In the year 2001, eviction petition was filed by the landlord under Section 13 of the Act on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent, building is more than 100 years old and is in dilapidated condition and is unfit and unsafe for human habitation; material alterations were carried out in the building by the tenant without consent of the landlord. However, by way of amendment, another ground of eviction was also added i.e. alternate accommodation is available to the tenant in view of the fact that new residence for Deputy Commissioner, Hisar, has been constructed and Deputy Commissioner, Hisar has shifted to the new residence. Initially, learned Rent Controller vide judgment dated 29.09.2006 has dismissed the eviction petition. Feeling aggrieved, landlord preferred a statutory appeal before the learned Appellate Authority, Hisar, which was registered as Rent Appeal No. 66 of 2006. The Appellate Authority has allowed the appeal vide impugned judgment dated 30.08.2007 on the ground that tenant has shifted to the alternate accommodation i.e. newly built residence for the Deputy Commissioner and building is lying vacant. Feeling aggrieved, State and Deputy Commissioner have invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

(3.) Mr. Narender Hooda, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, Haryana, vehemently argued that eviction order was passed by the learned Appellate Authority on the sole ground that Deputy Commissioner has shifted to the newly built Deputy Commissioner's residence; the learned Appellate Authority did not find favour with the landlord on the other grounds of the eviction. Mr. Hooda, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, Haryana, further argued that since landlord has not filed any revision against the findings recorded by the learned Appellate Authority on the question of dilapidated condition of the building, hence, it would not be appropriate for this Court to look into the other grounds of the eviction as taken by the landlord in the eviction petition. Mr. Hooda further argues that shifting of residence of Deputy Commissioner from the property in question to newly constructed house will not amount to vacation of the property by the State. Property is still in the symbolic possession of the State.