SAT NARAIN Vs. ANIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have been ordered to be evicted from the demised premises in proceedings initiated by the respondent under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act. The respondent landlord pleaded that he is owner of the property bearing house tax unit no. 2291/1 situated at Hissaria Gate, Sirsa. He pleaded that the property had been rented out to the father of the petitioners by his father about 40 years ago on a monthly rent of Rs. 5/ - which rent was increased from time to time. The demised premises came to the share of the landlord in a family settlement confirmed through civil decree dated 24.9.1975. Rent was paid by the petitioners to the respondent till 31.3.1988 whereafter they defaulted. Some portion of the building is being used by petitioner no.1 (son of original tenant) who is running his business of selling Pans and Cigarettes under the name and style of M/s Jot Ram & Sons. In this way, sub -letting was alleged. Eviction was thus sought on the ground of i) non -payment of rent; ii) sub -letting; iii) the building being more than 60 years old and therefore, unfit and unsafe for human habitation; iv) personal necessity for setting up an office -cum -residence as petitioner is a Chartered Accountant and vi) for impairment of the value and utility of the entire building.

(2.) THE petitioners contested the petition and disputed the title as well as identity of the property and the parties went to the trial on the following issues: -

(3.) BEFORE this Court, two issues have been primarily urged; i.e regarding identity of the property and relationship of tenant and landlord and the personal necessity of the respondent landlord not being bona fide. Learned counsel for the petitioners has with some vehemence contended that demised premises are situated in khasra no. 99 which belongs to the Government and the respondent is not the owner since the decree in his favour is not related to the demised premises. The petitioners assert that the land where the demised premises is situated belonged to the Government and possession having been given to them for setting up an eatery. He further states that the personal necessity as pleaded by the respondent has not been made out.