SHIV KUMAR Vs. SALAMTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is preferred at the instance of petitioner herein Shiv Kumar (tenant) against the judgment dated 23.1.2014 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Naraingarh vide which ejectment petition under Sec. 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act No. 11 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the eviction of the tenant from the shop No. 324/2 Ward No. 7, Panjlasa Chowk, Tehsil Naraingarh (the demised shop) was accepted and the order dated 7.5.2015 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Ambala vide which the appeal of the tenant preferred against the above said judgment dated 23.1.2014 passed by the learned Rent Controller was dismissed.

(2.) The case of the respondent herein who was the landlady before the learned Rent Controller in nutshell was that she purchased the demised shop from Smt. Raj Rani vide a registered sale deed. The entry in this regard was duly made in the record of Municipal Council, Naraingarh. The tenant took the demised shop on rent @ Rs. 450/ - per month besides municipal tax, electricity charges etc. etc. from its previous owner. After the purchase of the demised shop, a fresh rent note was got reduced into writing between the parties to this petition on 12.1.2008. It was further her case that the earlier owner of the tenancy premises got its rent increased to the tune of Rs. 450/ - per month by filing a petition for fixation of fair rent before the competent Court of law in the year 2005. Further the tenant assured to increase the rent of the demised shop by 25% after every five years besides municipal tax etc. etc. Ejectment of the tenant from the demised shop was sought on the ground of non -payment of rent since 1.2.2008 to 31.12.2009; that the tenancy premises are required by the petitioner/landlady for her own use and occupation since her son namely Mustak Mohammad is unemployed and she wants to open a kiryana shop in that tenancy premises to settle his said son and also that tenant is a source of big nuisance and hence this petition.

(3.) On notice petitioner herein (tenant) filed a reply taking preliminary objection that the petition is not maintainable; that the landlady has no cause of action to file this petition and that she is also guilty of concealment of material facts from the Court. On merits, it was his plea that he had paid the rent to the landlady till date by tendering the same in Court as well as by sending the same to her through money -order. It was denied that the demised shop is required by the petitioner -landlady for her son Mustak Mohammad. In this regard, it was his plea that her said son was already running a shop of spare parts in Tractor Market, Naraingarh. Rest of the averments were also denied by the tenant.