OM PARKASH Vs. NAVEEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners (tenants) have filed this revision petition to challenge the judgment dtd. 30/9/2022 passed in Rent Appeal No.76 of 2016 by the Appellate Authority, Hisar, whereby the judgment of eviction dtd. 9/2/2016 passed in Rent Petition No.12/2014 by the Rent Controller, Hisar was upheld.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the eviction petition by respondent (landlord) was founded upon three grounds: (i) Nonpayment of rent @ Rs.330.00 p.m. w.e.f. 1/9/2013; (ii) the tenanted premises is required by landlord and his wife for personal use and occupation, who intend to start business of kiryana store and (iii) the demised premises, being in dilapidated condition, is unfit and unsafe for human habitation.

(3.) Learned counsel submits that the eviction petition survived only on the ground Nos.2 and 3, as arrears of rent stood tendered to the landlord before Rent Controller. He further submits that the finding on ground No.3 relating to the condition of the demised premises has been delivered against the landlord, but eviction of tenant has been ordered by accepting the ground that the property is required by landlord for personal use and occupation. According to learned counsel, previously, a similar petition for eviction was filed by the landlord in the year 1999 and the same was dismissed by the Rent Controller, Hisar on 25/8/2007 and this decision was further upheld by Appellate Authority on 10/2/2014 (Annexure P-4). It is pointed out while dismissing the eviction petition, the appellate Court had observed that though Naveen-landlord claimed himself to be owner of the property in question, but his father Pritam lai Chaudhary has also in his affidavit claimed himself as owner of the tenanted premises and further the appellate authority noticed various properties owned by by Pritam Lal Chaudhary and returned a categoric finding that the ground of separation of properties has been raised only to seek eviction of tenant.