UTTAM CHAND Vs. KUSUM LATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present revision petition, filed under Section 15 (6) of the Haryana Urban Control Rent and Eviction Act, 1973 (for short, the 'Act'), is to the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller, Palwal, regarding the shop in question bearing No.108, New Sabzi Mandi, Palwal, on the ground of bona fide requirement of Anuj Singla, son of the landlady. A finding was recorded that the wife of the present petitioner-tenant was having other properties in the same urban area and therefore, the present petitioner was liable to be evicted as there was sufficient accommodation with him. Challenge has also been laid to the order of the Appellate Authority, Palwal, whereby the appeal of the present petitioner was dismissed on 30.04.2013 and the finding recorded by the Rent Controller was approved by holding that son of the landlady, Anuj Singla was running a general store was not substantiated. Resultantly, the present revision petition has been filed.

(2.) The respondent-landlady filed the eviction petition under Section 13 of the Act, taking the plea that the petitioner was a tenant in the shop on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,200/- including house tax and he had defaulted in payment of rent from 01.08.2005 to 30.09.2008, of 36 months, amounting to Rs. 43,200/-. The shop in question was required by her son Anuj Singla, who was 28 years old and unmarried and she had a moral obligation to settle her son in her lifetime. Specific averment was made that neither her son nor she had any other shop in the urban area of Palwal town for their own use nor had vacated any other shop in the town, after the commencement of the Act and thus, prayed for vacated under Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act. It was pleaded that the present petitioner, his father, mother and brother have other properties in the urban area which were lying vacant and he could shift in those properties and he was liable to be evicted as provided under Section 13(3)(a)(iv) of the Act.

(3.) In reply, the petitioner took the plea that the landlady had not received the rent and the amount of arrears had been tendered upto 30.11.2008 along with interest and costs to the tune of Rs. 5572 and Rs. 3000/-. A total sum of Rs. 52,972/- had been tendered out of which, rent was of Rs. 44,400/- for 37 months and the same had been received on 27.11.2008. The unemployment of the son of the landlady was denied and it was pleaded that he was in occupation of a shop within the Municipal limit of Palwal town and running a business there and it was denied that he has any shop in the urban area or that he had vacated any other such shop. The petition had been filed only to enhance the rate of rent. The factum of the family members owning several other properties was also denied and plea taken was that the petitioner was living separately from his father and brothers for the last many years and he had no other shop in his possession. Counsel for the petitioner-tenant has vehemently submitted that Anuj Singla, for whom eviction had been ordered, was running Nishu General Store and was an occupant and placed reliance upon the statement of RW3, to submit that the same had been misread to hold that he was not owner of the said store. It is further submitted that the mandatory requirement of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act had not been pleaded and therefore, in view of the judgment of this Court in Manmohan Lal Vs. Shanti Prakash Jain, 2014 2 RCR(Rent) 222 and the judgment of the Apex Court in Ajit Singh & another Vs. Jit Ram & another, 2008 2 RCR(Rent) 328, the eviction petition was liable to be dismissed. It was further pleaded that on earlier occasions, the rent had been enhanced and a compromise had been arrived at and therefore, there was a mala fide intention. Reliance was placed upon Sant Lal Vs. M/s Kanshi Ram Dewat Ram, 1989 1 RCR(Rent) 375.