LAXMI DEVI Vs. KISHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the landlord, against the judgment passed by the appellate authority, whereby the appeal filed by the tenant was allowed order passed by the Rent Controller was set aside and the ejectment petition filed by the landlord was dismissed.

(2.) FACTS in brief are that Ram Sarup, landlord, filed a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against Kishan Lal, tenant, seeking his ejectment from the residential portion on the first floor, which was on rent with the respondent tenant. In the petition, it was alleged that respondent had taken the first floor on rent for residence, on a monthly rent of Rs. 30/- plus house tax in the year 1962-63 and it was an oral tenancy. It was alleged that few karis of the last khan of the shop on the ground floor were damaged and likewise the respondent tenant by his own act and conduct had damaged two karis of the last room in the first floor and thus the building in question was likely to collapse at any time. It was alleged that the respondent tenant was liable to be ejected from the disputed premises, inter alia on the ground that he was in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.12.1983, till the date of filing of the petition @ Rs. 30/- per month besides payment of house tax and that the building was in a dilapidated condition and the karis of the roof of one interior khan of the shop, having its roof as floor of the building under tenancy and last room of the first floor, were likely to fall down. It was alleged that condition of the building was so dangerous that it may collapse at any time and that the building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. It was further alleged that respondent was of a quarrelsome nature and was source of nuisance to the property and others in the area. Said petition was contested by the respondent, by filing written reply. It was admitted that the respondent was residing on the first floor of the building. It was alleged that there was no agreement to pay house tax and respondent had never paid the same. It was alleged that karis of the roof are in the same condition from the very beginning and no damage has been caused to the building by the respondent. It was denied that the building was likely to collapse. It was further alleged that respondent was not liable to be evicted from the demised premises, on any of the grounds taken in the petition. It was alleged that the respondent had paid arrears of rent from 1.12.1983 to 31.5.1985 @ Rs. 30/- per month, besides house tax, interest and cost and the same was accepted by the landlord and that the respondent tenant was not liable to be evicted from the tenanted premises on the ground of non-payment of rent. It was denied that the building was in a dilapidated condition. It was alleged that the respondent had never visited the last khan of the ground floor of the shop, as the same was in possession of the petitioner landlord. It was alleged that to the knowledge of the respondent, no repairs have been made by the petitioner to the building with an intention that its condition may deteriorate. It was denied that building was unfit and unsafe for human habitation. It was further alleged that a portion of the building on the ground floor was in possession of one Thakar Dass as tenant and that the petitioner landlord had not taken any steps to seek his eviction and this would prove that the building was fit for habitation. It was denied that respondent had caused any nuisance, as alleged.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, in the revision petition and also in the aforesaid applications and have gone through the record carefully.