VIJAY BANDHU Vs. SOM DEV MALIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition under Section 15 (6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the judgment dated 7-1-1991 passed by the Appellate Authority Yamuna Nagar, by which the appeal filed by the respondent was allowed and the order dated 27-5-1987 passed by the Rent Controller, Jagadhri, was set aside.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are as follows. The petitioner filed a petition under Sections 9/10 of the Act against the respondent on the allegations that the petitioner is in possession of a portion of the premises, in dispute, as a tenant at a rent of Rs. 115/- per month inclusive of house tax, but the petitioner was to pay charges of electricity, consumed by him, if got installed by the respondent in the premises, in dispute. It has been further averred in the petition that when the petitioner took the premises or rent from the respondent, the respondent assured him that he would provide him with electricity connection and that is why, at the time of fixing the monthly rent, the respondent put the liability on the petitioner to pay charges of electricity etc. , that the respondent at that time was knowing that the petitioner was going to run a school under the name and style "bharat Public School" and, for that purpose, the respondent also allowed him the amenity of usage of the latrine constructed in the northern-eastern corner and also allowed to use water from the water-hand-pump installed in the street on the eastern corner of the premises, in dispute; that the students of the school were enjoying the amenities of the said latrine as well as water from the water-hand-pump; that the respondent, inspite of persistent demands for installation of electricity in the premises on a number of occasions, had been avoiding the same and did not get the electricity installed in the premises, in dispute; that with a view to getting the premises vacated from the petitioner, the respondent filed on ejectment application on 19-9-1984 against the petitioner in the Court of the Rent Controller. Jagadhri, on non-existent and flimsy grounds and thereafter he also got removed the water hand-pump and disallowed the usage of the latrine, with the result that the petitioner and the students were undergoing great hardship without the amenities of electricity, lavatory and drinking water; that the respondent, after removing the water-hand-pump, got installed a municipal water tap in the courtyard on the northern side of the premises, in dispute, but even he intentionally did not allow the use of the same by the students of the school with the motive to get the premises vacated under pressure; and that the aforesaid amenities of drinking water, lavatory and electricity are the basic necessities but the respondent did not provide the same in spite of repeated requests.

(3.) NOTICE of the petition, filed by the petitioner, was given to the respondent and, in reply thereto, the respondent admitted the rate of cent of the premises, in dispute, as Rs. 115/- per month. It was alleged by the respondent that there was no agreement between the parties about the aforesaid amenities, as the house, in question, was rented out oh temporary basis and that the premises, in question, was in a dilapidated condition, which could fall at any time and any electricity installation could electrocute any human being It has been further stated in the written statement that the question of installation: of water-hand-pump does not arise, as there is no provision in the entire house. It has also been asserted by the respondent that the room of the building are in a deplorable condition ; that there was no undertaking, verbal or in writing, that the petitioner would run a public school.