BABU RAM Vs. TILAK RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present revision petition is to the judgment dtd. 23/2/2018, vide which the petition under Sec. 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to be as 'Act of 1973'), filed by the respondent-landlord, has been allowed and the eviction of the present petitioner from the house in question has been ordered. Challenge is also to the judgment dtd. 31/8/2024 vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner through his legal representatives has been dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the impugned judgments by raising four submissions. The first ground of challenge is that at the time of filing of the petition i.e. on 22/4/2015, the respondent-landlord had stated that in the residence at House No.160, Model Colony at Yamuna Nagar, where he is residing with his son, was to be exclusively used by his son and his daughter-in-law and son of the respondent-landlord was also maintaining his separate godown near the said house in Model Colony, Yamuna Nagar for his business. It is submitted stated that however during the course of cross-examination, the said respondent-landlord/Tilak Raj had admitted that after the filing of the petition he had shifted the godown in the month of September to the house in question at Model Colony, Yamuna Nagar. It is submitted that the same was done in order to make out a case for eviction and the same shows malafide on the part of the respondent-landlord.

(3.) The second ground of challenge raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is to the effect that the respondent-landlord and his wife have other property and thus, the requirement of the respondent-landlord is not bona fide. It is stated that wife of the respondent-landlord Neelam Rani was the owner of plot number 180, Model Colony, Yamuna Nagar- Jagadhri and in order to prima facie shows the said fact, a reference was made to Ex.R-12, which was the document issued by the Municipal Corporation, Yamunanagar-Jagadhri on 9/11/2016, showing that the said Neelam Rani was the owner of the said property. It is stated that the said Neelam Rani had transferred the said plot in favour of her daughter-in- law Sandhya Jolly on 13/9/2017 and for the said purpose, the petitioners have referred to Ex.R2. The copies of both the said documents although have not been annexed with the present petition but have been shown to this Court during the course of arguments.