DES RAJ Vs. GINDORI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GINDORI , who claimed herself to be owner and landlady of the house in dispute, filed an ejectment application under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act), wherein she sough ejectment to Des Raj from the ground floor of the premises allegedly leased out to him on 15.6.1979. According to the claim of Gindori, the tenancy was regulated by a rent deed dated 20.6.1979. Gindori sought the eviction of Des Raj on a number of grounds. Illustratively, a few of the grounds raised by her are noticed hereinafter. Firstly, it was asserted that Des Raj was in arrears of rent; in this behalf, it was alleged that he had not paid rent from 20.3.1981 upto the date of filing of the ejectment application (i.e. 16.10.1981). Secondly, it was asserted that the building portion of the premises had been rented out to Des Raj exclusively for residential purposes and that he had started using the same solely for manufacturing sweet meats without the consent of the owner/landlady. Thirdly, it was asserted that Des Raj had made unauthorised additions and alterations in the premises, which had resulted in diminishing the value and utility thereof; in this behalf, it was alleged that he had made bhattis/ovens in one of the rooms. Fourthly, it was asserted that Des Raj was a source of nuisance; in this behalf, it was alleged that he was creating obstructions in the stair case used for passage to the first floor (of the same premises).

(2.) IN the written statement filed in response to the ejectment application, Des Raj raised a large number of objections. A few of the significant objections are being noticed hereinafter. Firstly, it was asserted that Gindori had no locus standi to file the ejectment application; in this behalf, it was pointed out that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner Gindori and respondent Des Raj. Secondly, it was asserted that Ishwar Dayal son of Gindori, who was receiving rent for the premises in question was the actual owner and landlord of the property and as such, the ejectment application filed at the hands of Gindori was ill- conceived. Thirdly, it was asserted that the premises had been taken on rent by the firm Des Raj Rajinder Parshad and as such it was contended that the instant ejectment application was not maintainable against Des Raj. Fourthly, it was alleged that the ejectment application had not been filed according to the rules framed under the Rent Act and as such was liable to be dismissed summarily. Fifthly, in para 2 of the ejectment application, Gindori had asserted that the premises in question was rented out to the respondent vide rent deed dated 20.6.1979, whereas the execution of the aforesaid rent deed was expressly denied by Des Raj in his written statement.

(3.) THE arguments advanced before this Court have been limited to the issue of charge of user. In view of the above, adjudication through the instant order is being limited to the aforesaid issue. In this behalf, it would be pertinent to mention that the Rent Controller while interpreting the terms and conditions of the rent deed dated 20.6.1979 arrived at the conclusions that the premises in question had been rented out to Des Raj for residential purpose. The Rent Controller further concluded on the basis of the admission of Des Raj, (who appeared as RW1), that he was not using the premises for residential purpose, but, was using the same as a godown for storing and manufacturing sweet meats. On account of the alleged activities being carried out in the premises in question, the Rent Controller concluded that the tenant Des Raj had changed the user of the premises by converting it from residential to non-residential, and as such, held that Des Raj was liable to ejectment from the premises in question.