RISHI ARORA Vs. SANJIV SINGH MIGLANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENTS had filed the application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 seeking ejectment of Vinod Kumar Arora from the shop in question. The Rent Controller allowed the ejectment petition vide order dated 25.10.2012 and the same was upheld by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 30.9.2013. Hence, present petition by Rishi Arora, legal heir of Vinod Kumar Arora.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record available on the file carefully. Case of the respondents was that Amar Nath was inducted as a tenant in the shop in question w.e.f. 1.8.1962 on a monthly rent of Rs. 25/ -. Tenancy was initially oral and later the termsof the tenancy were reduced into writing on 30.8.1962. Arjan Singh died on 23.4.1998. Initially tenancy was created by Arjan Singh in favour of Amar Nath. After the death of Arjan Singh, respondents had stepped into the shoes of Arjan Singh. After the death of Amar Nath, Vinod Kumar Arora became the tenant qua the premises in question. All the respondents had settled abroad. Ejectment of the tenant was sought on the ground of non payment of rent and on the ground that the suit property had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. It was also submitted by the respondents that the demised premises had been altered without the consent of the landlord and, thus, the value of the property had been materially impaired.

(3.) VINOD Kumar Arora -tenant, in his reply, denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was averred that Arjan Singh had died issueless and the respondents had no concern with the suit property. On the pleadings of the parties, following issued were framed by the Rent Controller: -