DINESH KUMAR Vs. RAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord is in revision petition aggrieved against the order passed by the authorities below, whereby the petition for ejectment under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') was dismissed.

(2.) THE petitioner purchased the property in dispute i.e. Nohra, vide registered sale-deed dated 23.9.1981. The respondent was a tenant over the property for the last 18 years on a monthly rent of Rs. 60/-. It is the case of the landlord that the Nohra was given for residential purposes but the respondent-tenant has installed a factory in it. The respondent has effected material alterations in the buildings as in the hall room one furnace has been erected and the roof has been broken to adjust the said furnace. The latrine has been demolished and the same has been converted into a water tank. One ventilator in the hall room has been closed. The roof of the verandah has been demolished. An iron shed has been erected in front of the hall gate. One door has been opened by demolishing the alimirah and one additional latrine has been constructed on the roof of the hall room. The petitioner also alleged that the premises are lying locked for the last more than six months and that the petitioner wants to settled at Bhadurgarh and, thus, pleaded bona fide requirement of the disputed premises.

(3.) THE controversy raised before the authorities below revolves around whether the building was let out for residential or non-residential purposes. If the building was let out for residential purposes, the ground of personal necessity was available as per the law then existed. The authorities below have found that the landlord has failed to prove that the premises were given for residential purposes and, therefore, the ground of personal necessity is not available. The ground of change of user did not find any favour with the authorities below. As regards the eviction on the ground of material alterations, it was found that though the respondent has not disputed that he has done some alterations i.e., by erecting a furnace and demolishing the verandah but such fact is not sufficient to grant an order of eviction.