MULAKH RAJ Vs. NEERAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant is the revision petitioner. The petition for eviction had been ordered with reference to a non-residential building namely the shops in question on the grounds:

(2.) There was no dispute with reference to the arrears of rent since the same had been tendered in the course of proceedings and therefore, the case was taken up for consideration only with reference to the other two remaining grounds. The Rent Controller found as a matter of fact that out of the two buildings in question, one building had been constructed only in the year 1983-84 admittedly and when the petition was filed on 17.07.1990, one of the buildings namely Shop No.11 was a new building to which the provisions of the Act under Section 1(2) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred as the Haryana Act) itself was not attracted.

(3.) The appeals had been filed by both the landlord and the tenant. The landlord was contending that the eviction must have been with reference to both the buildings namely Door No.10 and 11 while the tenant was contending that even the order of eviction that was made with reference to one of the shops was wrong since the act complained of did not constitute actionable grounds for eviction.