SAT PARKASH Vs. ARVIND KUMAR KHURANIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENTS No.1 and 2 sought ejectment of the petitioner and respondent No.3 by filing an application under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. Case of respondents No.1 and 2, in brief, was that the shop in question had been rented out to the petitioner at a monthly rent of Rs. 8,002/ -. The tenant was in arrears of rent and house tax since 15.6.1997 and had sublet the premises to respondent No.3. The ejectment of the petitioner was also sought by the landlord on the ground that the premises in question was required by them for their own use and occupation.

(2.) PETITIONER , in his written statement, denied the fact that respondents No.1 and 2 were owners of the rented premises. However, it was averred that there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The rate of rent was also admitted by the tenant. However, it was denied that the petitioner had sublet the premises in question to respondent No.3. It was also averred that the premises in question was not required by the landlord for their personal use and occupation.

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Rent Controller: -