RAVI SETHI Vs. SMT. KAMLA MADAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall dispose of three civil revision petitions i.e. CR Nos. 6982, 6984 and 7066 of 2011 which have arisen out of three rent petitions i.e. Rent Petition No. 6, 7 and 8 of 2007 between the parties and were decided vide one common judgment. This is tenant's revision petition challenging the order dated 4.10.2010 of the Rent Controller, Jagadhri whereby his eviction from the demised premises was ordered and the judgment dated 18.10.2011 of the Appellate Authority dismissing his appeal against the aforesaid order.

(2.) The respondent-landlady filed three eviction petitions under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1976, for ejectment of the petitioners from the shops in dispute, as detailed in the headnote of the petitions being part of House No. 204, situated near DAV Girls College at Chhoti Line, Yamunanagar. In Rent Petition No. 6 of 2007 (CR No. 6982 of 2011), it was averred that there existed a relationship of landlady and tenant between petitioner-Ravi Sethi and respondent-Kamla Madan. The shop in dispute was rented out by the respondent to the petitioner vide rent deed effected from 1.5.1993 to 31.3.1994 at the rate of Rs. 850/- per month plus house tax. It was submitted that rent of the said shop was increased to Rs. 1080/- + house tax w.e.f. 1.4.1994. The petitioner was liable to be ejected on the ground that he had subletted the shop in dispute to one Ram Bali Malhotra (who was arrayed as respondent No. 2 in the ejectment petition) without the permission of the landlord and in violation of the terms and conditions of the agreement of rent. It was further averred that the petitioner and one Ram Bali Malhotra have changed the user of the shop in dispute and have installed photostat machines and started a STD telephone booth and mobile coupon recharge in the shop in dispute without the prior permission of the respondent-landlady. It was also stated that the petitioner had made huge additions and alterations and had damaged the northern wall and due to demolition of the wall, the roof of the shop in dispute has become weak. The petitioner had also made big holes in the walls of the shop for affixing racks by which the strength of the shop has weakened. It was stated that there were three shops which were rented out to the petitioner and the petitioner without written consent of the respondent, had removed all the intervening walls which were in between the three shops and converted them into one shop without the permission of the landlady. It was further averred that the petitioner was a bad pay master and never paid the rent in time and at present has failed to make the payment of rent for the period from 1.11.2006. It was also submitted that shop in dispute was required by the respondent-landlord for her personal necessity as her son, namely, Narinder Kumar was unemployed and had no source of income. Thus, the petitioner was requested to vacate the shop in dispute but he had refused to do so. Similar ground of personal necessity was raised in other eviction petitions regarding other demised premises.

(3.) Upon notice, the petitioner filed written statement-cum-counter claim. The facts of written statement placed on record of three petitions are similar except the date of rent agreement and monthly rent of shops. It was submitted that shop in dispute in petition No. 7 of 2007 was rented out by the respondent to the petitioner vide rent agreement dated 22.4.1993 on a monthly rent of Rs. 850/- per month. It was further submitted that shop in dispute in petition No. 8 of 2007 was rented out by the respondent to the petitioner vide rent agreement dated 7.10.1994 on a monthly rent of Rs. 800/- and shop in dispute in petition No. 6 of 2007 was rented out vide rent agreement Ex. P3 on a monthly rent of Rs. 850/- per month. No house tax was payable by the petitioner. It was further submitted that the petitioner filed suit for possession which was dismissed by the court of Ms. Sonika Goel, the then Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagadhri vide civil suit Nos. 1188, 1189 and 1190 of 9.11.2000 decided on 14.10.2006. In those suits, the respondent herself admitted that the petitioner was not liable to pay any tax. It was further submitted that rate of rent of the shop in dispute was not increased after expiry of 11 months but was increased at the rate of 5% per year by the petitioner arbitrarily and illegally whereas the basic rate of rent of the shop was Rs. 800/- per month inclusive of house tax and other expenses. It was further submitted that shop was rented out to the petitioner for running the business of stationery etc. and it was agreed at the time of agreement that the petitioner may make any addition or alteration as per requirement of students of college. Moreover, the petitioner was allowed to change the business but in fact he had not changed the business and had expanded the same which was also related to his business of stationery. It was also stated that the petitioner never sublet the shop in dispute to Ram Bali Malhotra and he was not a tenant in the shop and had no concern with the business of the petitioner. It was also stated that as per the rent note, the petitioner was permitted to remove the wall and he had also taken the adjoining shop on rent from the respondent vide rent note dated 1.6.1996 and vide this rent note, he was permitted to make the passage in the northern wall of the shop in dispute. It was further submitted that the petitioner was always ready to pay the rent but the respondent refused to accept the same. All other averments were denied and dismissal of the petition was prayed.