VISHWANATH Vs. SUMITRA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlady filed an application under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred 'to as the Act') for seeking eviction of the respondents. It is alleged that respondent-petitioner No. 1 was inducted as a tenant in the demised premises on payment of Rs. 40/- P.M. as rent besides the house tax. An eviction has been sought on three grounds, i.e., (i) non-payment of arrears of rent for the last 3 years prior to the filing of the application; (ii) change of user of the premises; (iii) sub-letting the tenancy by respondent-petitioner No. 1 to respondent-petitioner No. 2.

(2.) THE respondent-petitioner No. 2 has been impleaded as respondent No. 2 vide order dated 23.2.1988 passed by the Rent Controller upon an application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. All the pleas have been contested by the respondent-petitioners by alleging that the rent was regularly paid but the landlady did not issue the receipts. It has been specifically controverted that no house tax was payable by the tenant and that the same was the liability of the landlady. It has been noticed that the rent has been tendered by respondent No. 1. It has also been averred that the premises had been let out for the purpose of godown and therefore, the question of change of user did not arise. So far as plea of sub-letting is concerned, the same has been controverted on the premises that the tenancy had been created in favour of M/s Bandhu Pharmacy, Noharia Bazar, Sirsa and not in favour of respondent No. 1. As on date, the tenancy continues to be in favour of the said firm which is sole proprietary concern of respondent-petitioner No. 2. He has also alleged that the rent has been tendered by the firm despite the fact that the rent stood paid but the landlady had not issued the receipts but to overcome the threat of eviction, the rent has been paid twice over. Upon the pleadings of the parties, the issues have been framed and the parties have led documentary as well as oral evidence.

(3.) IN respect of change of user, it is admitted case between the parties that no rent note has been produced on the court file as none seems to have been executed between the parties. It is only the oral evidence which has been produced by the landlady, who have asserted that the demised premises had been initially used as a shop and lateron the said premises have been converted into a godown. This statement has been controverted by the respondent No. 2 who has stepped into the witness box and has been examined himself as RW1. He has categorically stated that the demised premises are being used as godown since the inception of tenancy. The finding in this regard has been returned by the Rent Controller in favour of the respondent-petitioners and against the landlady. This finding has been further affirmed by the Appellate Authority.