ARUN VIG Vs. MAYA GUGLANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner/Tenant has filed the instant revision petition against the ejectment orders passed by the Courts below, whereby the ejectment application under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short the Act) filed by respondent/landlady (since deceased) on the grounds of non-payment of rent and personal necessity was allowed by the learned Rent Controller, Ambala Cantt. vide order dated 22.7.2009 and the appeal filed by the tenant/petitioner was dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority, Ambala vide order dated 24.11.2011. Facts necessary for the decision of the present revision petition are that respondent/landlady filed ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Act alleging therein that demised premises-a residential house was originally owned by her son Suresh Guglani, who died on 18.10.1995 being issueless and unmarried and after his death the demised premises was transferred in the name of the respondent/landlady. The demised premises was let out to the petitioner/tenant vide rent note dated 27.5.1995 at a monthly rent of Rs. 2500/- payable in advance besides water and electricity charges. Though it was alleged by the respondent/landlady that the petitioner/tenant neither tendered nor paid rent for the last seven years, however, she restricted her claim to recover rent for 36 months i.e. from 1.8.2003 to 31.7.2006 alongwith interest and costs. Besides that the ejectment of the petitioner/tenant was sought on the ground of personal necessity by alleging that she was residing with her another son Naresh Guglani who had his own family and that she intended to enjoy her own house as she did not want to live at the mercy of her son.

(2.) Petitioner/Tenant contested the claim by taking various preliminary objections. On merits it was alleged that the rent note was a fake and fabricated document; the demised premises was taken on rent @ Rs. 1000/- p.m.; after the death of Suresh Guglani he paid rent to Naresh Guglani upto 31.7.2006, who did not issue any receipt; an inter pleader suit was filed by the petitioner/tenant; rent had been tendered by him under protest for the period claimed by the landlady at the agreed rent of Rs. 1000/- with interest and costs. Regarding personal necessity, it was alleged by the tenant that respondent/landlady had several houses at her disposal; even deceased Suresh Guglani was residing in other house when he let out the demised premises to the petitioner/tenant; the ejectment petition had been filed just to get the demised premises vacated as the respondent/landlady was residing with her son in another residential house having ten rooms; the landlady was aged and unable to live alone as she required help every now and then.

(3.) Respondent/Landlady filed replication. On the pleading of the parties issues were framed. Both sides led evidence in support of their respective pleas. The learned Rent Controller, Ambala after hearing both sides and perusing the evidence on record, allowed the ejectment petition vide order dated 22.7.2009. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner/tenant filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority, Ambala vide order dated 22.8.2009, however, the ground of non-payment of rent @ Rs. 2500/- was held to be not sustainable as the tenant/petitioner had paid upto date rent @ 2500/- during the pendency of the appeal. The Appellate Court ordered ejectment of the petitioner/tenant on the ground of personal necessity of the landlady. Hence the present revision petition.