RATTAN LAL Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment would dispose of two revision petitions bearing Nos. 1463 and 1925 of 1983, as common question of law and facts are involved in both these cases. Facts are taken from C.R. No. 1925 of 1983.

(2.) THE landlord i.e. petitioner-respondents filed a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The grounds set up for seeking ejectment have been spelt out in the petition inclusive of the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent. A second petition was also filed on similar ground and also claiming a ground of non-payment of rent for the subsequent period. Both the petitions were consolidated and disposed of by a common judgment passed by the Rent Controller. However, the tenant being dissatisfied with the judgment dated 26.2.1982 filed two appeals before the appellate authority and the appeals were also decided by a common judgment rendered on May 6, 1983 vide which both the appeals have been dismissed. Resultantly, two petitions have been filed challenging the same order.

(3.) THE tenant contested the petition and has denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. He has also denied that the rate of rent is Rs. 50/- per month. It is alleged that he was a tenant under Net Ram Bhola Nath at the rate of Rs. 190/- per annum and that for the last 13 years the said firm has not claimed any rent. However, the rent has been tendered at the rate of Rs. 190/- per year w.e.f. 1.7.1974 along with costs and interest. The allegation of impairment of the value and utility of the building has been emphatically denied. In respect of change of user, it has been alleged that the demised premises had in fact been taken for the purpose of storing Bhusa etc i.e. the demised premises were being used as godown from day one. So far as the status of the building is concerned it is alleged that the same is absolutely fit for human habitation. The ground of personal necessity has been categorically and emphatically refuted.