BHAGIRATH Vs. MANMOHAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant has assailed the order of the Appellate Authority by which he has been ordered to vacate the demised premises (shop) on the twin grounds of non-payment/short tender of arrears of rent and personal necessity of the landlord.

(2.) In brief, Bhola Ram, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner was inducted as a tenant by Santra Devi on a monthly rent of Rs. 106/- and house tax for the period of three months vide rent deed dated 12.2.1985. He did not surrender the possession of the shop after the expiry of three months and became a statutory tenant.

(3.) After the death of Santra Devi, her rights were inherited by Bajrang Lal, who sold the demised premises to Surender Kumar son of Daya Kishan and Sat Narain son of Rajender Prasad vide registered sale deed No.3648 dated 28.1.2005. The respondent/landlord is alleged to have become the owner of the demised premises on the basis of a family settlement dated 13.11.2008 and had filed the eviction petition on the ground of arrears of rent from 28.12.2006 to 27.8.2008 for the period of 20 months @ Rs. 106 per month amounting to Rs. 2120/- and house tax Rs. 590/- per annum which was enhanced by the Municipal Council, Narnaul with the fire tax @ Rs. 131/- per annum since 2007. Besides, the landlord also demanded the demised premises on the ground of his bona fide necessity for his own business and alleged that he does not occupy any non-residential building in the area of Narnaul and has not vacated any such building in the said urban area without sufficient cause after the commencement of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act').