CHHOTEY LAL Vs. RAJENDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question for adjudication in this case is as to "whether a tenant can seek re-entry under Section 13(6) of the Act to a building reconstructed by the landlord which was earlier got vacated from him in a petition filed under Section 13(3)(c) of the Act on the basis of a compromise in which a statement is also recorded, even if the said eviction petition was admittedly dismissed as withdrawn".

(2.) This revision petition is at the instance of the tenant against the orders passed by the Courts below by which a petition filed by him under Section 13(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 [for short "the Act"] read with Sections 144 & 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short "CPC"] for restoration of possession of the shop (demised premises), has been dismissed.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are that the respondent (landlord) filed an eviction petition No. 29 of 07.09.2002 titled as 'Rajender Kumar v. Chhotey Lal' under Section 13 of the Act seeking eviction of the petitioner (tenant) on the ground that the demised premises has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. During the pendency of the eviction petition, a written compromise was arrived at between the parties on 28.11.2002, according to which the tenant handed over vacant possession of the demised premises to the landlord on the condition that he would let it out to him again after demolition and reconstruction, on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,250/- including house tax. The said agreement was produced before the Rent Controller in the said eviction petition on the same day as Ex.C1 and the statement of the parties was also recorded by the Rent Controller. The proceedings carried out on that date were recorded as under :-