RAM SARAN Vs. GOBIND SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner- tenant against the orders passed by the Courts below, whereby the ejectment order was passed against him by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that Gobind Sharma (landlord) filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 against Ram Saran (tenant), seeking his eviction from the house in question on the ground that he was the owner/landlord of the house in dispute, where Ram Saran was the tenant under him at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month, besides house tax and that the tenant had failed to pay the rent and house tax for the period 1.10.1986 to 30.9.1989 amounting to Rs. 3600/- besides house tax amounting to Rs. 360/-. It was further alleged that Gobind Sharma- landlord required the house in dispute for his bonafide personal necessity. It was further alleged that the tenant had materially impaired the value and utility of the house in dispute. The said petition was contested by the tenant, by filing written reply, alleging therein that he was the tenant under Kishan Lal, on a monthly rent of Rs. 30/- for the last 40 years and was paying the rent to him regularly. It was alleged that Kishan Lal, in collusion with Gobind Sharma, wanted to forcibly dispossess him from the demised premises, whereupon he had filed a suit for permanent injunction, which was pending in the civil court. It was alleged that he had already paid the rent upto the month of January, 1989 to Kishan Lal and thereafter he had sent the rent for the month of February, 1989 through money-order, but it was not accepted. It was alleged tthat the rent for the period from February, 1989 to September, 1989 has been tendered along with interest and costs. It was alleged that Gobind Sharma had not disclosed in the eviction petition as and when he has purchased the house from Kishan Lal. It was denied that Gobind Sharma required the house in dispute for his bonafide personal necessity. It was alleged that in fact he was living in his own house, which was a big one having considerable open area. It was denied that he had diminished the value and utility of the house in dispute. On the pleadings of the party, various issues were framed.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.