JAGDISH PARSHAD Vs. TRILOK CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed by the tenant, who is aggrieved against the findings recorded by the authorities below by virtue of which the ejectment application of the respondent-landlord has been allowed.

(2.) The ejectment application had been filed under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter called 'The Rent Act') by the landlord-respondent on the ground that Jagdish Parshad was the tenant of the rented land shown by letters ABC in the site plan filed alongwith the petition at a monthly rent of Rs. 200 and the land was in the shape of a triangle measuring 10' x 7-1/2' and out of this area, the Municipal Committee, Rewari had encroached upon 2-1/2' area for constructing a drain. The ground of ejectment was that the rent was not being paid and material alteration had been done. The rent note was dated 16.06.1987 for 11 months in favour of the previous landlady Bhagwati Devi and in the rent note, it was mentioned that the tenant would use the rented land by placing rehri and would not raise any construction on the land and the tenant had raised construction on the rented land without the prior permission of the landlord and, therefore, changed the nature of the rented land as well as impaired the value and utility of the rented land.

(3.) The ejectment application was contested by filing written statement and taking the stand that the landlord had no locus standi to file the petition and the same was not maintainable as there was litigation regarding title of the disputed property with the Municipal Committee, Rewari and was bad for non-joinder of parties. The petition was liable to be dismissed on the principle of res judicata and the ownership was of the Municipal Committee of land situated in Khasra No. 164/43 at Narnaul Chowk, Rewari and it was denied that the tenant had been rented out the land measuring 10' x 7-1/2' bearing red colour by Bhagwati Devi marked ABC for Rs. 200 per month and the site plan was incorrect. It was contended that the tenant after fulfilling the requisite fee and proceedings of the site plan, had constructed his own sweet shop before 26.03.1996 and the property vested with the Municipal Committee and the landlord had no concern with ownership and possession. Initially the following issues were framed by the Rent Controller:-