MOHINDER KUMAR Vs. KISHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been preferred by the landlordpetitioners against the orders passed by both the Authorities below dismissing their ejectment petition.

(2.) The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the landlordpetitioner filed a petition under Sec. 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Haryana Rent Act') for ejectment of the tenant-respondent from property bearing nos.752 and 752/1, Bich Ki Diggi, Ambala Cantt. It was averred in the ejectment petition that the tenant-respondent took part of property no.752, Bich Ki Diggi, Ambala Cantt. on a rent @ Rs.200.00 per month from the grandmother of the landlord-petitioners for his residential purpose and that the electricity and water charges were to be paid by the tenant-respondent. The tenantrespondent agreed to pay the advance rent at the rate of Rs.200.00 per month. It is further averred that the tenant-respondent was liable to be evicted from the demised premises on the ground that he had not paid the rent w.e.f. 1/8/2004 onwards. It was also averred that the tenant-respondent was creating a nuisance in the locality. It was further the case set up that the landlord-petitioners required the demised premises for their personal use and occupation because the landlord-petitioner nos.1, 3 and 4 have no house for their residential premises and they are living in a rented accommodation situated at Ram Bagh Road, Ambala Cantt. It was also averred that the tenant-respondent has his own house and he can safely reside there. The landlord-petitioners also took the plea that the demised premises were unfit and unsafe for human habitation.

(3.) The tenant-respondent filed a written statement raising preliminary objections qua maintainability, locus standi, non-joinder and misjoinder of parties and claimed that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. On merits, it was denied that the landlordpetitioners are owners of the demised premises and that the tenant-respondent was a tenant under the temple and one Ram Chander, Gardner, who used to collect the rent on behalf of the temple. It was also submitted that the rent along with interest and costs had been tendered with the condition that the same would be paid to the correct owner. The bonafide necessity of the landlord-petitioners was also denied.