RAM SINGH Vs. GANGA PARSHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-landlords filed an application under section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, (for short, the Act) against the respondent seeking his eviction besides other on two grounds (with others I am not concerned any more) now being reiterated before me, i. e. (i) that Vijaypal an adopted son of Ratti Ram petitioner got married about 4-1/2 years prior to the filing of the petition and as there was a rift between the wife of the petitioner Ratti Ram and wife of Vijaypal, i. e. the mother-in-law and the daughter-in-law, the petitioner wants the demised premises for his personal use and occupation (ii) that the respondent-tenant has acquired two houses in the name of his wife Vidya Devi which houses are in fact owned by the respondent and he is in possession of the same but concurrently failed in both the lower Courts.

(2.) The solitary submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners now is that the lower Courts have not appreciated the evidence led on their behalf and have thus reached a wrong conclusion. Though this approach or argument to my mind is no more available to the petitioners in view of the judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Mattulal v. Radhe Lal, 1974 AIR(SC) 1596 wherein it has been held that unless the petitioner can make out a case showing that the conclusions recorded by the lower Courts are wholly perverse or the said Courts have failed to take notice of some evidence which exists on record the High Court would not interfere in revision in these matters. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners has not drawn my attention to any such perversity or omission or the non-consideration of the evidence led on their behalf yet after going through the evidence, I find that the lower Courts are right in holding that neither the adoption of Vijaypal by petitioner Ratti Rain is proved nor the alleged friction between the daughter-in-law and mother-in-law has even been deposed to by the petitioner Ratti Ram while appearing as A. W. 12. There is no evidence to prove one of the essential conditions of a valid adoption i. e the giving and taking of the child by the natural parents to the adoptive parents leading to his transplantation in the adoptive family. Similarly, so far as the other ground pleaded under section 13 (3) (a) (iv) is concerned firstly, there is not an iota of evidence on record to show that the houses alleged to have been acquired in the name of the wife of the respondent actually belong to the respondent. Secondly one of the necessary ingredients of this clause (iv) that the acquired accommodation is reasonably sufficient for the requirement of the respondent-tenant has not even been alleged in the application filed for his eviction. Further it is nowhere established on record that the respondent-tenant is in possession of any house other than the one which he occupies as a tenant, rather in the application itself it is mentioned that the houses acquired in the name of the wife of the respondent are lying vacant.

(3.) Thus keeping in view the concurrent findings of the lower Courts and the lack of merits, I dismiss this petition but with no order as to costs.