LAWS(P&H)-2002-11-83

JOGINDER SINGH SAWHNEY Vs. HARBANS LAL

Decided On November 18, 2002
Joginder Singh Sawhney Appellant
V/S
HARBANS LAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for brevity 'the Act') challenges order dated 18.2.1993, passed by the Appellate Authority, Ambala, dismissing the appeal of the landlord-petitioner in which the order dated 7.1.1991 passed by the Rent Controller was impugned. The Rent Controller in his order dated 7.1.1991 had dismissed the application of the landlord-petitioner in which his prayer for ejectment of the tenant-respondent on the ground of non-payment of rent and also on the ground of personal necessity was negatived.

(2.) THE facts necessary for deciding the legal controversy raised in the present petition are that the landlord-petitioner filed Rent Application No. 6-R/16.4.1988 instituted on 3.1.1983 for ejectment of the tenant-respondent from the demised premises by alleging that he had not paid rent since 1.7.1979. However, rent for the period from 1.11.1979 to 31.10.1982 only amounting to Rs. 2880/- including interest and cost was claimed. It was further alleged that the rate of rent per month was Rs. 80/-. It was further alleged that the demised premises were required by the landlord-petitioner for his own use and occupation as his son was of marriageable age who did not have any residence for his use. The landlord-petitioner further asserted that he had not vacated any other premises without sufficient cause nor he has any accommodation available for his own use and occupation. He further averred that the premises available with the landlord-petitioner was not sufficient and he urgently required the demised premises along with another portion of the house for which a separate ejectment application had been filed.

(3.) ON issue No. 1, the Rent Controller took up both the grounds for decision. He recorded the finding that the landlord-petitioner miserably failed to prove the rate of rent. He further pointed out that different rates of rent have been given in the ejectment application where he has claimed Rs. 80/- per month as rent and in his replication, the rate of rent mentioned is Rs. 90/-. When he appeared as P.W.1, he did not depose about the rate of rent. The plea of the tenant-respondent was taken to be proved that the ratte of rent as settled between the landlord-petitioner and the tenant-respondent was Rs. 35/- per month and therefore, it was accepted that the tender amount of Rs. 250/- represented the arrears of rent which was not accepted by the landlord- petitioner. On the basis of the aforementioned finding, the Rent Controller recorded the conclusion that there was no arrears of rent and negatived the first plea.