GAINDA RAM Vs. L.C. NARULA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a landlords' revision and has been directed against the judgment dated 22.10.1982, passed by the Appellate Authority, Ambala, who, reversed the order of ejectment dated 25.11.1981 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Ambala Cantt, who had ordered the eviction of Shri Om Parkash holding that he is a sub-tenant of Shri L.C. Narula and moreover, the demised premises are required for personal necessity of the petitioners-landlords.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that petitioners S/Shri Gainda Ram, Ved Parkash, Vijay Kumar, Dr. Dalip Chand and Shri K.K. Gupta, who were trustees of Hargolal Trust Society, Ambala Cantt, though Shri Ved Parkash, General Attorney, filed the ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 against Shri L.C. Narula and Shri Om Parkash, seeking their ejectment from the demised premises bearing No. 5309/35 situated in, Punjabi Mohalla, Ambala Cantt. It was alleged by the petitioners that Shri L.C. Narula, respondent No. 1 was a tenant under them in the premises bearing No. 5309/35 situated in Punjabi Mohalla, Ambala Cantt on payment of Rs. 7/- as rent besides water tax at the rate of rupee one per month. The tenancy of respondent No. 1 was terminated by serving him a legal notice dated 7.2.1977 which was received by him on 9.2.1977. Respondents No. 1 and 2 are liable to be ejected from the demised premises on the grounds; that respondent No. 1 has neither paid nor tendered the arrears of rent with effect from 1.1.1977 to 31.3.1977 amounting to Rs. 56/- beside water tax of Rs. 8/-; that the respondent No. 1 has sublet the demised premises in favour of respondent No. 2 without the written consent of the petitioners after the commencement of the Act of and that the tenanted premises are required by the petitioners trustees for its institution namely Hargolal Girls High School Punjabi Mohalla Ambala Cantt as the present accommodation in the school is insufficient to meet its present requirements.

(3.) THE petitioners filed a rejoinder to the written statement of respondent No. 2 in which they denied the allegations by reiterating those made in the petition. Resultantly, the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues :-