A.K. GOEL Vs. HARJEET KAUR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-tenant, under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Rent Control Eviction Act, 1973 (for short, the 'Act') against the orders of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller, Yamunanagar at Jagadhri and against the appellate order dated 29.11.2013.

(2.) The sole argument of counsel for the petitioner is that the benefit of the observations made by the Apex Court in Rakesh Wadhawan Vs. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation,2005 5 SCC 440, could be extended to the petitioner and he should have been granted the opportunity to tender the rent. He has, accordingly, submitted that the judgment of this Court in M/s Rachitech Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Kundan Steel Pvt. Ltd., 2007 145 PunLR 386 would not be applicable since it was not that the status of the petitioner as a tenant had been contested. It is submitted that in the said case, since the relationship of landlord-tenant had been denied, it has been held that there was no necessity of the assessment of the provisional rent. Accordingly, it is contended that in the present case, the petitioner-tenant had already taken the plea that the landlord was the husband of respondent No.1 and therefore, as such, the factum of the petitioner being a tenant was never denied.

(3.) A perusal of the paperbook would go on to show that respondent No.1 filed the petition under Section 13 of the Act, for ejectment from the shop attached with house No.136 situated at Chhoti Line near Santpura, Yamunanagar, boundaries of which were given in the rent petition. It was alleged that the petitioner was a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 900/- per month from 16.04.1988 and there is a relationship between them of landlord-tenant and the rent was liable to be increased after the expiry of every 5 years, as per the rent deed. Ejectment was sought on the ground that after 16.12.2003, payment of rent had not been made. Arrears of rent for a period of 32 months was claimed from 16.12.2003. Second ground of eviction was that respondents No.2 & 3 had taken the shop at rent from the present petitioner, without the consent of the landlady and thus, subletting was alleged. The petitioner took the plea that the rate of rent was Rs. 500/- per month and that he had paid the rent till March, 2006. The shop in dispute was let out by Darshan Singh, the husband of respondent No.1 in the year 1996, to the petitioner, who is the karta of the joint HUF and respondent No.2 was the father of the tenant whereas respondent No.3 was the younger brother and they were living in the joint family in House No.136 situated at Chhoti Line near Santpura, Yamunanagar. The enhancement clause was denied and the rent deed was alleged to be a forged one. The husband of respondent No.1 had been receiving regular rent from March, 2006 but no receipt had been issued against the rent being tendered @ Rs. 500/- per month, as per the provisional assessment made on 10.11.2006, which had been received under protest by respondent No.1. It was denied that the premises had been sublet to a third person. A counter-claim was also filed by the petitioner that the respondent had paid rent to Darshan Singh that he had not issued any receipt and thus, a sum of Rs. 13,500/- was tendered in excess which was not due, apart from the fact that karyana goods had been purchased to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- by respondent No.1 and her husband, price of which had not been paid to them.