(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of Appellate Authority under the Haryana Urban Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1973, (for short 'the Act') allowing the appeal of the tenant and dismissing the ejectment petition filed by the landlords. The Rent Controller had passed an order of ejectment against the tenant.
(2.) LANDLORDS-PETITIONERS purchased the property from Kunj Bihari and Bhim Singh on 29th of June, 1973. After the said purchase, an ejectment application was filed by the petitioners for the ejectment of the respondent-tenant on the ground that the tenant has failed to pay the arrears of rent w. e. f. 1st of July, 1973, and that the tenant has ceased to occupy the shop since 1976. It was claimed in the said application that previously, the rent was being paid by the tenant at the rate of Rs 4/- per month, but after the purchase the tenant had agreed to pay the rent at the rate of Rs. 80/- per month. On the first date of hearing, the tenant tendered the rate at the rate of Rs. 4/per month. ]n his written statement, he denied that the rate of rent is Rs. 80/- per month, rather he stated that right from the inception of tenancy, the rent is being paid at the rate of Rs. 4/- per month, and there was no agreement with the landlord to pay the rent at the rate of Rs. 80/- per month as alleged in the ejectment application. He also took up the plea that the disputed property is not a shop, but is being used as a godown right from the beginning of tenancy.
(3.) THE Rent Controller passed an order of ejectment against the tenant after finding that the tenant had agreed to pay the rent at the rate of Rs. 80/- per month, and he having not tendered the rent at the said rate, is liable to be ejected on the ground of non-payment of rent. The ejectment was also ordered on the ground that the tenant had ceased to occupy the premises for a continuous period of more than four months The Rent Controller also found that the premises were let out as a shop and not as godown.