PANDIT BISHAN SARUP Vs. PREM NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's petition against whom eviction order has been passed by both the authorities below.

(2.) THE landlord Prem Narain sought the ejectment of his tenant Pt. Bishan Sarup from the premises in dispute which consists of the Gher which was let out to him for tethering his cattle. It is the common case of the parties that previously one Smt. Chandra Wati, wife of Jai Parkash, was the owner of the premises in dispute along with other two rooms. Admittedly, Chandra Wati had let out the said two rooms along with the Gher in dispute to the tenant Bishan Saup for tethering his cattle. It was in the year 1976 that Chandra Wati sold the Gher (open space) to Prem Narain landlord, though Bishan Sarup also continued to be the tenant under Chandra Wati in the said two rooms which were let out originally to him along with the Gher. The landlord filed the ejectment application on April 22, 1981, seeking the ejectment of the tenant from the said Gher (open space surrounded by four walls) on the ground that the premises was let out for residential purpose and since the tenant is already in possession of his own residential building which is sufficient for his requirement in the urban area concerned, he is liable to ejectment. In the reply filed on behalf of the tenant, it was pleaded that the Gher in question is not a residential one and that he has not been residing therein. The tenant does own his own house in the urban area concerned, but since the premises in dispute was taken for tethering the cattle he was not liable to ejectment, as alleged by the landlord. According to the tenant the premises in dispute was a non-residential building as he was running a milk dairy therein and, therefore, the landlord was not entitled to seek ejectment from the said non-residential building. The learned Rent Controller found that the premises in dispute was let out for tethering cattle and not for running any milk dairy, as alleged by the tenant, and, therefore, the premises in dispute could not be held as non-residential building. According to the definition of the term 'residential building' under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, the residential building falls within the said definition. Since the tenant was already in occupation of a residential building of his own in the urban area concerned which was sufficient to meet his requirement, eviction order was passed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller and maintained the eviction order. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenant has filed this petition in this Court.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that originally the open space was let out along with the two rooms which are still in occupation of the tenant and the Gher in dispute being a part of the building falls within the definition of the building as defined under the Act. Thus argued the learned counsel, the finding of the Courts below in this behalf was correct and could not be interferred with in revisional jurisdiction. In any case, argued the learned counsel, the case which is now being set up in this petition was never taken up either in the pleadings or before any of the authorities.