BAJRANG LAL Vs. RATTAN LAL @ VIPUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tenant Bajrang Lal has filed this revision petition under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (in short, the Act), assailing judgment dated 30.07.2011 passed by learned Appellate Authority (under the Act), Sirsa thereby ordering ejectment of the tenant-petitioner from the demised shop. Respondent No. 1 herein Rattan Lal @ Vipul (hereinafter referred as landlord) filed ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Act against the petitioner-tenant and against proforma respondents No. 2 and 3 alleged subtenants. It was pleaded that the landlord has become owner of the demised shop by way of family settlement with his father Pawan Kumar who was the original landlord and had let out the demised shop to the tenant-petitioner. Eviction was sought on two grounds i.e. subletting of the demised shop by the tenant-petitioner to respondents No. 2 and 3 and on the ground of bonafide necessity of the landlord.

(2.) The petitioner-tenant and the sub-tenants controverted the averments of the landlord. Relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was denied. It was pleaded that tenant-petitioner had taken the shop on rent from landlord's father Pawan Kumar who continues to be the landlord. It was pleaded that respondent No. 2 was only servant of the tenant-petitioner whereas respondent No. 3 had attended the shop for about three months to learn the business i.e. as apprentice and had since left the shop. Ground of personal necessity of the landlord was also controverted.

(3.) Learned Rent Controller, Sirsa vide judgment dated 28.01.2009 dismissed the ejectment petition holding that relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties has not been proved and both grounds of subletting and personal necessity of the landlord have also not been proved. However, Appellate Authority, Sirsa vide impugned judgment dated 30.07.2011 allowed the appeal preferred by landlord and held the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties to be proved and also held both grounds of subletting and personal necessity of the landlord to be proved and has, therefore, ordered ejectment of the tenant and alleged sub-tenants from the demised shop. Feeling aggrieved, only tenant has filed this revision petition.