GULSHAN KUMAR JAIN Vs. NEENA JAUHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is landlady's revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 04.05.2013 of the Rent Controller, Kalka, whereby in a petition filed by her, under Section 13-A(1-A) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Rent Act') being specified landlady, for ejectment of the respondenttenant, leave to defend has been granted.

(2.) The petitioner-landlady filed an ejectment petition against the respondent-tenant on the averments that she is owner and landlady of the demised house bearing House/Tenement No.255/MIG/GF, Housing Board Colony, Kalka and has retired as Superintendent from the office of Engineer-in-Chief, Haryana PWD (B&R) Branch, Chandigarh on 31.01.2013 on attaining the age of superannuation. The respondent is a tenant under her in respect of the demised premises. Presently she is living in a Government accommodation bearing House No.3758, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh but owing to her retirement on 31.01.2013 she has to vacate the said premises on 30.04.2013. Thus, the petitioner-landlady requires the house in question for her personal bonafide use and occupation. She or her husband is neither occupying any other residential accommodation in the urban area or Municipal limits of Kalka or in the entire district of Panchkula in their own right, nor the petitioner or her husband has vacated any residential accommodation in the urban area or Municipal limits of Kalka or in the entire district of Panchkula without any sufficient or reasonable cause after the commencement of the Rent Act. It was further averred that the petitioner was not having any other property in her name or in the name of any member of her family in India except the suit property. It has been further averred in the petition that the petitioner had requested the respondent-tenant before her retirement to vacate the premises in question upto 31.12.2012 and also to ensure payment of arrears of rent; however, the respondent-tenant was not acceding to the genuine request of the petitioner. It is further averred in the petition that in the year 2007, the petitioner had filed an ejectment application against the respondent, which was dismissed on 16.08.2010 as the petitioner was unable to lead evidence due to some unforeseen problems. It was further averred that the petitioner-landlady being specified landlady was entitled to evict the respondent-tenant under Section 13-A(1-A) of the Rent Act.

(3.) Upon notice, the respondent-tenant filed an application seeking leave to defend stating that the rate of rent was Rs. 525 per month excluding electricity and water charges. He was paying the rent regularly by depositing the same in the account of the petitioner. The petitioner-landlady had earlier filed an ejectment application on the ground of non-payment of rent as well as personal necessity and the same was dismissed on 16.08.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner-landlady had approached him for compromise and the respondent had assured to vacate the demised house and had further asked for extension of the tenancy period upto 31.12.2015, as he had to construct the house. It is his further case that he had already purchased land measuring 2 1/2 Biswas on 29.08.2011 and he is raising construction of his own house but the completion of work will require some more time and on completion of the house he will shift in his own house. It was further averred that the petitioner has filed the present petition against him on the false ground. The petitioner is residing in Chandigarh and it is not possible for her to reside at Kalka after leaving the city of Chandigarh. Not only this, the petitioner-landlady is having her own residential accommodation in Chandigarh and is also having one industrial plot in Chandigarh, therefore, she is having sufficient accommodation in Chandigarh for residence and thus, the present petition has been filed on the basis of false and frivolous grounds and the same deserves to be dismissed.