RAJINDER SINGH Vs. JATINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question involved in this case is that as to ''whether the back door of the demised premises, 'which is claimed by the tenant to be an amenity which has been ordered to be closed by a decree of the Civil Court which has been upheld up to the High Court, can be ordered to be opened by the learned Rent Controller in exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 10 of the Act or in other words whether such application would be maintainable? ''

(2.) The tenant is in revision' against the orders of the Courts below by which his application filed under Section 10 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction Act, 1973 [for short ''the Act''] for seeking a direction to the landlord not to interfere in the amenities provided in the demised premises (shop) has been dismissed on the ground of its maintainability.

(3.) In brief, the case set up by the petitioner is that he is a tenant since 1961 in the demised premises which had a door on the backside of the northern corner towards West. The house of the petitioner is at the back of the demised premises who enjoyed all the facilities such as air and light coming from the said backdoor which was also used for his ingress and egress to his house, but the landlord had filed a Civil Suit for closing the said door which has been decreed, however, the said decree is without jurisdiction and is not binding on the rights of the petitioner as the amenities provided to the tenant cannot be interfered with by the landlord in terms of Section 10 of the Act. In reply, it was alleged that the application is not maintainable. The door in question was in existence on the rear portion of the demised premises, but the rear portion of the demised premises was sold by the landlord to the petitioner/tenant vide registered sale deed dated 26.02.1981 in which it was categorically recited that the door of the western side of the demised premises shall be closed as and when directed by the landlord. It was alleged that the judgment and decree of the Civil Court has attained finality between the parties and the door does not come within the purview of the amenities, as alleged.