KALI CHARAN Vs. RAGHBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's petition filed under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for brevity, the Act) challenging the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below to the effect that the landlord-petitioner is not entitled to eject its tenant- respondent from the demised house on the ground that the latter has already acquired a house for himself, as envisaged by Section 13(3)(a)(iv) of the Act. The house which is alleged to have been acquired by the tenant-respondent has in fact been found to be owned by his son Surinder Singh, power of attorney, Ram Kumar filed Rent Petition No. 12 of 1985 on 12-2-1985 setting up the ground of non-payment of rent, and that the tenant-respondent has acquired a residential house bearing No. Y-1617 after the commencement of tenancy, within the municipal limits of the urban area of Bhiwani. It was further alleged that the aforementioned house is sufficient for his requirement. It is pertinent to mention that the landlord-petitioners are trustees of Seth Kiori Mal Charitable Trust, Raigarh.

(2.) THE issue concerning non-payment of rent did not remain alive as the arrears of rent were tendered alongwith costs and interest in accordance with the claim made by the landlord-petitioners. However, the only question which remained alive before the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority was whether the tenant-respondent had acquired residential house within the urban area of Bhiwani which may be sufficient for his requirement within the meaning of Section 13(3)(a)(iv) of the Act. The tenant-respondent had controverted the allegations concerning acquisition or construction of a new house. The house bearing No. Y-1617 has in fact been owned by his son Surender Singh who is living abroad. He further alleged that the landlord-petitioners had manipulated the municipal record to show that the tenant-respondent is the owner of the aforementioned house. The record is said to have been corrected later on at the instance of the tenant-respondent. The Rent Controller on the basis of his analysis of the oral as well as documentary evidence recorded the conclusion in para 12 of his judgment that Surender Singh son of the tenant- respondent is the absolute owner of House No. Y-1617 and the tenant-respondent has no right, title or interest of any nature in that house. The Rent Controller also rejected the argument that the tenant-respondent constitutes a joint Hindu Family with his son Surender Singh.

(3.) MR . H.S. Giani, learned counsel for the landlord-petitioners has argued that the entry in the assessment register of municipal record for the year 1979-1980, Ex. A1 would show that the tenant-respondent is the owner of House No. Y-1617. The learned counsel has also argued that the entries have been changed later on 12-4-1985 after the filing of the instant petition on 12-2- 1985 as is evident from Ex. R1 which reflects corrections made in pursuance to Order dated 20-4-1985. The learned counsel has also pointed out that for all intents and purposes, the house belongs to tenant-respondents, Raghbir Singh as he has been visiting his son in United States and receiving benefits from the U.S. Government in lieu of the social security. He has made reference to the statement of tenant-respondent, Raghbir Singh, RW-1, where he was admitted that he has been working as attorney of his son and collecting rent on his behalf. He has made reference to document Ex. R15 dated 2-11-1987 wherein he has been authorised to collect rent by his son Surender Singh with further stipulation to ensure the maintenance of his house on his behalf. He has also pointed that the rent so collected is not deposited in the account of his son. The learned counsel has further argued that the loan of Rs. 20,000/- obtained by Surender Singh son of the tenant-respondent has been repaid by the tenant- respondent and in fact the house has also been built by the tenant-respondent because Surender Singh had gone to U.S.A. in 1968 and the house has been built somewhere in 1978. The learned counsel has maintained that the aforementioned facts sufficiently show that the transactions showing the name of Surender Singh is a camouflage and in fact the tenant-respondent is owner of the house, collecting rents and getting social security from U.S.A.