LEKH RAJ Vs. JATINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed against an order of ejectment passed by the learned Rent Controller and affirmed by the Appellate Authority. The case set up by the petitioner was that the tenant petitioner had taken the property in dispute on rent from Smt. Sushila Bhalla at a monthly rent of Rs. 250/- and by way of sale-deed dated 19.3.1990, said Sushil Bhalla sold the entire property including the suit property in favour of the petitioner and since then the petitioner is the landlord and respondent is tenant qua the suit property by operation of law.

(2.) The grounds of ejectment were that the respondent has neither paid nor tendered the arrears of rent since 19.3.1990 till the date of filing of the petition without any sufficient cause or reason, and that room in dispute had become unfit and unsafe for human use and habitation as the portion of the room marked by letters LMNO had fallen down. Even the battons were eaten by while ants and also that the petitioner bonafide required the room in dispute for his personal use and occupation as the accommodation in possession of the petitioner was insufficient.

(3.) The petitioner-tenant contested the said application and denied that he had taken only the suit property from Smt. Sushila Bhalla at the alleged rate of rent. It was the case of the petitioner that the said portion ABCD is only part of property in possession of the respondent as tenant under Sushila Bhalla at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month for the whole tenanted portion. The tenant further denied that Smt. Sushila Bhalla had sold the entire property in favour of the landlord-respondent as alleged. According to the tenant the portion in occupation of the respondent was sold by her to number of persons who jointly along with the petitioner constitute a body of landlord qua the respondent. According to the petitioner-tenant the agreed rent was paid to the landlord to whom Smt. Sushila Bhalla had sold the property but they were refusing to accept the same and were putting a false claim regarding the rate of rent and extent of tenancy. The case of the claimant was that the landlord in the present petition alone was not entitled to claim the rent from the respondent qua the demised premises in his possession. The tenant further alleged that the landlord-respondent had acted malafide in claiming the rent at exaggerated rate. According to the tenant, the entire premises in his possession were let out to him by Smt. Sushila Bhalla at the rate of Rs. 50/-per month out of which the petitioner had purchased only a portion of the demises premised. The tenant tendered the rent at the rate of Rs. 50/-per month and therefore, the ground for eviction on account of nonpayment of rent was not applicable. It was also denied that any portion of the suit property had become unfit or unsafe for human habitation. For that no portion of room had fallen down as alleged. The ground of bonafide requirement was also denied.