SHAM LAL Vs. SEHDEV ARYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision petition has been filed against the judgments dtd. 11/7/2019 passed by the Rent Controller, Hisar, whereby rent petition filed by the respondent/landlord was allowed and 7/5/2024 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Hisar, whereby appeal preferred by the petitioner/tenant was dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case as per rent petition are that the rent petitioner is owner and landlord of the demised premises which was taken on rent by the respondent from the petitioner in the year 1970 @ Rs.1200.00 per month plus house tax, for the business of making iron grills, gates, jail and shutters etc. In the year 1996, rent of demised premises was increased to Rs.3000.00 per month plus house tax. Thereafter, respondent requested the petitioner to get constructed one store and shed in the premises in question and to renovate main gate and office. Petitioner got constructed two stores, a big shed and renovated the main gate and office of the demised premises, upon which rent of the premises was increased to Rs.5000.00 per month plus house tax w.e.f. 1/4/2011 vide rent note dtd. 30/3/2001. It was alleged that always rent was increased by the respondent with the mutual consent of the petitioner. Therefore, no fair rent has been fixed in respect of the premises in question. Eviction of the respondent from the premises in question was sought on the following grounds:

(3.) On issuing of notice, respondent/tenant appeared and filed written statement taking preliminary objections on the ground of maintainability, cause of action, estoppel, concealment of facts etc. It was alleged that petition was malafide and counter-blast to the criminal complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioner and his associates, who were facing trial in case under Ss. 420/467/471/120-B IPC instituted at the instance of respondent. Earlier petitioner filed Rent Petition No. 31 dtd. 1/9/2007 against the respondent claiming the rent of demised shop @ Rs.5000.00 per month on the basis of forged rent note dtd. 30/3/2001 and receipts in which the documents were sent to FSL Madhuban on the application of respondent and after inspection, said alleged rent note dtd. 30/3/2001 and receipts, were found to be fabricated documents. In order to pressurize the respondent, petitioner filed this petition on false and concocted grounds. Petitioner was a practicing lawyer and enrolled with District Bar Association, Hisar and in view of Advocate's Act and guidelines issued by the Bar Council of India, he was precluded from running any business like PG. It was averred that petitioner had concealed material facts that he was owing and occupying sufficient area which was much larger than the demised premises adjacent and near to the demised premises. Petitioner had made false declaration regarding non-occupation and non-vacation of such or similar non-residential accommodation after the commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the 1949 Act'), rather petitioner and his family members had got vacated, let out and sold non-residential accommodation, but petitioner had concealed these material facts from the Court. On merits, it was submitted that the alleged rent note was a forged document. Rent of demised premises was never increased to Rs.5000.00 per month. Petitioner had not disclosed as to what rate of rent was increased between the parties by mutual consent. The other material averments made in the petition were denied and it was prayed that rent petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed with costs.