RATTAN LAL Vs. NITYA NAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'tenant') against the concurrent findings recorded by both the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority, vide orders dtd. 4/12/2015 and 16/2/2018, respectively.

(2.) The respondent-landlord (hereinafter referred to as 'landlord') filed a petition u/s 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction Act), 1973, seeking eviction of the tenant from a Godown (hereinafter called 'demised premises') situated at Nai Mandi, Narnaul. The pleaded case of the landlord may be noticed as thus:-

(3.) On being put to notice, the tenant did not deny that the demised premises was taken on rent vide Rent Note dtd. 6/9/1986 and that presently he was paying a rent of Rs.800.00 p.m., however, he asserted that the rent which was being paid by him, was the agreed fair rent between the parties. He denied that the demised premises was in a dilapidated condition and thus, unfit for human habitation. He further denied that he had removed wooden battens, slabs etc., as alleged by the landlord. Rather, he submitted that the demised premises was in the same condition, as it was, when it was taken on rent in the year 1986.