RAMESH GOEL Vs. SUMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/tenant challenging order dtd. 6/1/2018, passed by learned Rent Controller, Panipat, whereby his ejectment has been ordered as well as order dtd. 6/7/2021, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Panipat, whereby petitioner's appeal has been dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the case are that respondent-landlady filed a petition under Sec. 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, seeking ejectment of the present petitioner/tenant from the demised premises i.e. a shop, on the ground that tenant is in arrears of rent, secondly she required the premises for her own bona fide use. It is pleaded that tenant took the demised premises on rent from Kesar Dass (father-in-law of landlady), who expired on 2/3/2014. Kesar Dass sold the demised premises to the petitioner/landlady during his life time vide registered sale deed dtd. 5/9/2012 and after alteration of the size of property in the year 2013, rent was fixed as Rs.14,000.00 per month. It is further pleaded that the tenant has not deposited rent without any cause since 1/4/2013 besides house-tax after paying the same only for one month. Landlady pleaded that she required the demised premises for her bona fide personal use as her husband is running a garment shop in the same market, after taking it on rent. It is further pleaded that the tenant owns another shop and landlady requested him to vacate the demised premises, but in vain. Hence, the petition was filed.

(3.) Present petitioner/tenant resisted the petition while taking various preliminary objections in the reply, while denying the landlady to be the owner of the demised premises. It was averred that present petitioner/tenant took the shop on rent from Kesar Dass at monthly rent of Rs.2,000.00 and after his death, husband of the landlady demanded the rent at the rate of Rs.3,000.00 per month which has been paid to the husband of landlady up to December 2015. Thereafter, landlady and her husband tried to forcibly dispossess the present petitioner/tenant from the demised premises qua which he filed a suit for permanent injunction. Husband of landlady was also challaned under Sec. 107/151 Cr.P.C. and thereafter, ejectment petition was filed. It is further averred that when landlady and her husband forcibly tried to dispossess the present petitioner/tenant, FIR No.806 dtd. 20/7/2016 was also registered against them. Rent at the rate of Rs.14,000.00 per month and house tax was denied. It is further averred that landlady and her husband are owners of many properties including one shop adjacent to demised premises, therefore, they are not in need of the demised premises. Dismissal of the petition was sought.