SURINDER KUMAR Vs. LEELA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenant's revision petition challenging the impugned order of eviction dated 15.2.2011 whereby Rent Controller, Jagadhri, has ordered his eviction, in a petition filed under section 13-A of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") by one Raj Kumar Sharma (i.e. predecessor-in-interest of the respondents).

(2.) As per the averments emerging from the impugned order, one Raj Kumar Sharma (predecessor-in-interest of the respondents) was the owner/landlord in respect of the demised premises wherein the petitioner was inducted as a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 575/-. The ejectment petition was filed on the ground that the petitioner was in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.1.2007 to 31.1.2008 and that landlord was serving in the Indian Armed Forces and is going to retire in June 2008 and after his retire men the required the shop bona fidely for his personal use and occupation for running the business of electronics goods and the shop lying vacant measuring 7'x12' was not sufficient for his business. It was further averred that respondent was not having any other shop/non residential building in his possession as landlord or in any other capacity except the shop in dispute and the other shop lying vacant. Neither he had vacated any other non residential building without any sufficient cause after the commencement of 1949 Act. He being an employee of the Armed Forces of the Union of India, was entitled to the possession of the demised premises immediately as per law under sections 13,13-A and 3-A of the Act. It was further averred that Raj Kumar Sharma respondent was suffering from a serious disease like cancer and he was under the treatment of Army Hospital Research and Referral Delhi Cantt-10. Moreover, he had two sons namely Vikrant Sharma aged 25 years and Vikas Sharma aged 23 years. Vikrant Sharma has got the Diploma in Radio and T.V. From ITI whereas Vikas Sharma has got the Diploma in Electrician from ITI and at present both of them were unemployed and were dependent upon him. He wanted to settle both of his sons in business of electronics goods in the shop in question along with the shop lying vacant and with the help of his sons the respondent who was suffering from cancer would be able to carryon the business in the shop in question after retirement in 2008. Another ground for eviction of the petitioner was projected stating that he had purchased one shop vide registered sale deed dated 11.5.2001 over which shop has been constructed thereon and was most suitable and sufficient for the use and occupation of the petitioner. Hence, the instant petition for ejectment of the petitioner was filed.

(3.) Upon notice petitioner appeared. Vide order dated 16.4.2008 provisional rent was assessed by the rent Controller which was tendered. It may also be noticed at this stage that on 4.5.2009 respondents prayed for withdrawal of all other grounds of ejectment, except the ground of personal necessity and for treating the present petition as the one under section 13A of the Act. Vide order dated 12.6.2009, the said application was allowed and the respondents/landlord was permitted to withdraw the other grounds of eviction except the ground of personal necessity and the petition was treated as the one under section 13-A of the Act. It may not be out of place to mention here that the petitioner challenged the aforesaid order dated12.6.2009 before this Court vide C.R. No. 4578 of 2009, which was dismissed vide order dated 13.8.2009. The instant petition was filed by the landlord Raj Kumar Sharma on 24.1.2008. However, he died on 20.2.2008. Respondents were brought on record as his legal representatives on 1.8.2008. Thereafter, petitioner applied for leave to contest which was granted vide order dated 24.9.2009. The petitioner contested the petition by filing written statement raising preliminary objection that the petition was not maintainable because after the death of Raj Kumar Sharma his legal representatives have no legal right to seek relief under section 13-A of the Act and have no locus standi to file the present petition. Petitioner also raised various other preliminary objections. On merits, relationship of landlord and tenant was admitted between the parties. It was also admitted that Raj Kumar Sharma was serving in the Armed Forces. However, it was disputed that the shop in question was required by them as alleged. It was also averred that the respondents were already in possession of a shop and thus they did not fulfill the requirement for eviction of the petitioner under section 13-A of the Act. All other averments were denied and dismissal of the petition was sought.