PAWAN KUMAR Vs. RAM KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) While questioning the correctness of the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below, the defendant has come up in the present appeal.

(2.) This Bench has heard the learned counsels representing the parties at length and with their able assistance perused the judgments as well as the records of the courts below which was requisitioned.

(3.) The learned counsel representing the appellant contends that there is no forfeiture of the tenancy rights merely because the appellant denied the relationship because as per the provisions of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1973 Act'), the grounds of eviction of a tenant are specifically provided which does not include the forfeiture of tenancy on the denial of landlord and tenant relationship, therefore, the judgments passed by the courts below are not sustainable. He relies upon judgment in Devasahayam (dead) by LRs vs. P. Savithramma and others, (2005) 7 SCC 653. While elaborating, he submits that previously the respondent (plaintiff in the suit) himself filed a petition under sec. 13 of the 1973 Act, alleging that the appellant is a tenant. He submits that in view of the admission of the respondent, the civil court has no jurisdiction to pass a decree for possession.