MOHINDER KUMAR Vs. NARINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's petition in whose favour eviction order passed by the Rent Controller was set aside in appeal.

(2.) MOHINDER Kumar landlord filed the petition with the allegations that the land in dispute was let out originally by Lal Hari Parshad to Khushal Singh, tenant-respondent No. 1 vide rent note dated 1.7.1948 Ex. R11 for a period of 5 years beginning from 1.7.1948 and ending on 30.6.1953 on an amount rent of Rs. 200/- for setting up a dairy thereon. After the expiry of the said period, the tenant continued occupying it as a statutory tenant. Meanwhile Lal Hari Parshad died and on his death the land in dispute was inherited by his sons. Thus Khushal Singh became a tenant under them by operation of law. Apart from that the tenant also had attorned to the aforesaid persons vide rent not Ex. D1 dated 4.8.1958 and agreed to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 300/- plus house tax per annum. Later on Puran Chand died on 11.2.1974 and on his death as per his will Mohinder Kumar petitioner became his sole heir and thus Khushal Singh became a tenant on the suit land under Mohinder Kumar and others. During the continuance of the tenancy, the tenant also executed another rent note Ex. R1 dated 7.9.1963 in favour of Puran Chand etc. According to the landlord there was a family settlement between Yadav Parkash, Anand Parkash and the landlord himself and according to that settlement the land is dispute fell to his share along with his right to recover the arrears of rent upto date. Ejectment of the respondent was claimed on the ground that the tenant did not pay the arrears of rent and house tax since 1.7.1973 and secondly, he had sublet a portion of the suit land to respondents Nos. 2 to 12 without the written consent or permission of the landlord. Thirdly, the tenant had changed the user of land for which it was let out inasmuch as instead of setting up a dairy he constructed shops and residential houses and that his sub-tenants have also built residential houses thereupon. The tenant filed his written statement and admitted that the premises were let out to him by Lala Hari Parshad. He, however, stated that the purpose of letting was to construct residential as well as non-residential buildings over it. According to him, the lease in his favour was subsequently renewed from year to year. Later on, after the death of Lala Hari Parshad, Puran Chand the father of the petitioner Mohinder Kumar agreed that he will not eject the answering respondent from the disputed land and that he will go on paying the rent to him. However, all the amount due was tendered on the first date of hearing. The ground of sub-letting was also denied. It was stated that respondents Nos. 3 to 12 are his relations and he had allowed them to reside and carry on their business over the disputed land as a licensee. It was disputed that the said respondents were sub-tenants as he was not charging any rent from them. Regarding change of user, it was pleaded that the allegations are incorrect. Respondent No. 2 Attar Singh filed a separate written reply and took the plea that he is in possession of this shop as tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 30/- which he had taken on rent from Khazan Singh, father-in-law of respondent No. 1 and the rent was paid to him. Respondents Nos. 3 to 12 filed their separate written statements, They denied most of the facts for want of knowledge and, the ground of ejectment was disputed. They pleaded that they are licencees under Khushal Singh respondent being their relations and are in possession of the premises for the last more than 20 years. The learned Rent Controller framed five issues including the one as to whether the Court had jurisdiction to try this application. During the pendency of the petition before the Rent Controller on 2.2.1983 a compromise was effected between the landlord and respondent-tenant. The tenant admitted the ground of ejectment on certain conditions and as a result thereof, the learned Rent Controller passed the eviction order against the respondents.

(3.) ON merits, the learned appellate authority found that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to try this petition because the landlord failed to prove that the premises in dispute was the "rented land" as defined under the Act. According to the appellate authority, the rented land was never let out separately of the purpose of being used principally for business or trade as defined under section 2(f) of the Haryana Urban ( Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. In that situation according to the appellate authority the jurisdiction will be that of the civil court and not of the authority under the Act. Consequently, ejectment application was dismissed, Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord has filed this petition is this Court.