SUNIL KUMAR Vs. MANJU SANGHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-tenant (hereinafter referred to as'the tenant') is impugning the concurrent findings recorded by the Rent Controller, Narnaul and the Appellate Authority, Narnaul vide which he was directed to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the demised premises (as detailed in para No.1 of the judgment of the Rent Controller dtd. 4/10/2016) to the landlady. The tenant has also challenged the order dtd. 9/9/2021 vide which his application for leading additional evidence was dismissed by the Appellate Authority.

(2.) Respondent No.1-landlady (hereinafter referred to as'landlady') filed the eviction petition under Sec. 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short,'the Act') on the following grounds:-

(3.) On being put to notice, the tenant appeared and filed his written reply wherein a preliminary objection qua maintainability of the petition was taken. It was averred therein that the tenant had never refused to pay rent to the landlady, however, it was she herself who had refused to accept the rent since she wanted the tenant and respondent No.2 to be evicted from the demised premises. The tenant further denied that he had caused any damage to the demised premises or had sublet the same to respondent No.2. It was rather submitted that respondent No.2 was not a sub-tenant but was his employee.