JADISH LAL SEHGAL Vs. R.K. JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of Civil revision Nos. 4316 and 4317 of 2005 as they relate to the same demised premises and are between the same parties. Besides they were consolidated by the Rent Controller vide order dated 24.2.2001. Even otherwise common questions of law and facts arise in these revision petitions.

(2.) THE landlord-respondents filed two ejectment petitions under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (Act for short) for ejectment of the tenant-petitioner from House No. 1373 as detailed in the head note of the ejectment petition. The landlord sought the eviction on the ground that the tenant was in arrears of rent. Besides, he required the premises for his personal bona fide necessity. It was also pleaded that no fair rent had been fixed under the Act. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is not denied. The tenant-petitioner asserted that he had been regularly making payment of rent to the petitioner for which the landlord and/or his representatives had been accepting the rent but they did not give any receipt. The ground of bona fide necessity of the landlord was denied by taking the stand that the landlord had been working as a Superintending Engineer with the Haryana Vidyut Parsar Nigam Limited (HVPN) at Panchkula and he has a residential house No. 792, Sector 4 at Panchkula. Besides the children the landlord were also studying there. The rate of rent was stated to be Rs. 900/- per month and not Rs. 2,500/- per month as had been claimed by the landlord. The learned Rent Controller held the rate of rent between the parties to be Rs. 1100/- per month and not Rs. 2,500/- per month. It was also held that the tenant had not paid rent for the period from 1.7.1994 to 31.12.1996 which comes to Rs. 33,000/- and with interest and costs amounted to Rs. 47,090/- which the tenant-petitioner was directed to pay within two weeks from the passing of the order in accordance with the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Wadhawan v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, 2002(1) RCR(Rent) 514 (SC) : 2002(2) PLR 370. The case of bona fide requirement was also held to be made out in favour of the landlord. Accordingly, ejectment of the tenant-petitioner was ordered.

(3.) MR . N.S. Shekhawat, learned counsel appearing for the tenant-petitioner has vehemently contended that the orders passed by the authorities under the Act are perverse and the same are unsustainable in law inasmuch as there has been mis-reading of evidence and the authorities under the Act have completely brushed aside the evidence on record. It is contended that the rate of rent in respect of the demised premises was Rs. 900/- per month. However, the Rent Controller wrongly assessed the same to be Rs. 1100/- per month whereas the Appellate Authority further erred in holding that the rate of rent was Rs. 2,500/- per month. It is submitted that the documents Ex. A-3 and Ex A-4 have been mis-read by the Appellate Authority. Ex. A-3, it is submitted, was executed between the petitioner and one Mrs. Veeran Wali, who claimed herself to be the owner of the house. The landlord-respondent while appearing in the case admitted that he had not given any authority to said Mrs. Veeran Wali to execute such a document. Therefore, the landlord-respondent, it is contended, could not derive any benefit from the same and the same did not inter se determine the rights of the parties. Even the document Ex. A-4 has been wrongly relied upon to hold that the rate of rent was increased from Rs. 900/- to Rs. 1100/-, then to Rs. 1,800/- and lastly to Rs. 2,500/-. In fact there was no reference in the said document to the gradual increase of rent. The respondent, it is contended, even though he is an income-tax assessee, failed to show that the rent as claimed was shown in the income tax returns. The findings with respect to bona fide necessity recorded by both the authorities under the Act are also assailed and it is contended that evidence beyond the pleadings has been taken into consideration inasmuch as there is no reference to the retirement of the landlord-respondent from the Electricity Board. Besides the respondent has his own house at Panchkula and his children are also studying there. Therefore, the need of the landlord is only a ruse to seek eviction of the petitioner-tenant. In support of his the learned counsel has relied upon Shakuntla Bai v. Narain Dass, 2004(2) RCR(Rent) 580 (SC) : 2004(2) HRR 5 (SC).