SURINDER DHINGRA Vs. BHIM SAIN ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenant's revision petition challenging the judgment dated 6.2.2010 passed by the Appellate Authority, Karnal whereby while accepting the appeal filed by the respondent-landlord, the ejectment of the petitioner was ordered from the demised premises on the ground of personal necessity and bonafide need of the landlord.

(2.) As per the averments made in the rent petition, the disputed shop was rented out by the respondents to late Shri Ved Parkash Sharma, father of the petitioner @ Rs. 1,000/- per month and the rent was being received by the mother of the respondent as per family settlement between the respondent and his brothers, she was authorised to collect the rent from the tenants. The shop in question had fallen to the share of the respondent in the family partition. A writing was executed between the brothers and their mother in this regard. The eviction was sought on the ground that the petitioner had no right to occupy the shop after the death of his father who was in arrears of rent after 1.4.2005. The respondent also pleaded that the premises were required for his own use and occupation as after retirement from Haryana State Electricity Board on 30.9.2005, he wanted to start his own business of electrical appliances in the premises. Moreover, his son had completed M.Com. and Chartered Accountancy and, thus, the shop in question was required for personal need.

(3.) Upon notice, the petitioner appeared and contested the ejectment application stating that the same was not maintainable as respondent had no locus standi to file the same. It was further asserted that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was further stated that father of the petitioner was a tenant under Smt. Sheela Devi who was collecting the rent and issuing the receipts to him The rent @ Rs. 1,000/- per month was being paid regularly by Shri Ved Parkash. After his death, the petitioner continued to work in the shop of his father and requested the landlady to accept the rent and when she refused, he filed an application under Section 6A of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred as 'the Rent Act'). The petitioner and his mother were colluding with each other to evict the respondent from the demised premises. The factum of partition between the petitioner and his family was denied. All other contentions raised by the respondent-landlord were denied and dismissal of the petition was prayed for.