SUNIL KUMAR Vs. NIKKO DEVI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's revision against the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, dated 10.10.2014, against which the appeal preferred by him has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, on 05.08.2015.

(2.) PETITION for eviction was filed by the respondents -landlords against the petitioner -tenant for getting vacant two shops measuring 10 feet X 12 feet and 6 feet X 8 feet, situated at Gulab Nagar, Yamuna Nagar. Admitted case of the parties is that Roshan Lal was the owner/landlord of the shops in question, who rented the bigger shop to the petitioner -tenant on 01.07.2004 at the rate of Rs. 600/ - per month up to 31.05.2005. The rent was enhanced from time to time. The shop was rented for ten months at the monthly rent of Rs. 850/ - with effect from 01.05.2011 to 01.03.2012 by rent deed dated 15.04.2011 and the other shop which is adjoining and smaller was rented out at the monthly rent of Rs. 300/ - with effect from 01.05.2011 to 01.03.2012 by rent deed dated 16.04.2011. All the taxes for both the shops were to be paid by the petitioner -tenant. Roshan Lal required the shops in dispute for use and occupation of his son Dinesh Kumar for running tyre puncture repair shop and for selling second hand tyres, which was clearly stated at the time of entering into the rent deeds with an assurance that it would be vacated by the petitioner -tenant for the said purpose as and when requested.

(3.) THE grounds, on which the eviction was sought, were nonpayment of arrears of rent and the requirement of the shops in question for the personal use and occupation of Dinesh Kumar. It would not be out of way to mention here that respondents 2 to 4, who are sons and daughters of Roshan Lal deceased, had relinquished their shares in the properties including the demised shops in favour of respondent No. 1 -Nikko Devi their mother by release deed dated 09.10.2012 and, therefore, she had become the owner of the demised shops but the petition was filed on behalf of all the legal heirs to avoid technical objections.