H N SOOD Vs. VINOD KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT -petitioner-tenant has assailed the ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller on 18. 3. 1992 and the lower Appellate Court's order dated 11. 11. 1995, whereby ejectment order is affirmed.

(2.) PETITIONERS Vinod Kumar, Narinder Kumar and Smt. Sarla Devi filed an ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (in short the 'act') for ejectment of the respondent-petitioner-tenant on the grounds of non payment of rental arrears, ceased to occupy the demised premises and lastly that the respondent's wife has purchased a house No. 1285 in the same street in the year 1984 and tenant has acquired its possession.

(3.) RESPONDENT -petitioner's learned counsel contended that earlier Narinder Kumar filed an ejectment petitioner against the respondent-petitioner claiming himself to have become landlord of the demised premises on the basis of family partition. He also claimed respondent's eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement for his residence, the petition was dismissed. Later on, these petitioner-respondents have filed this ejectment petition claiming themselves to be the owners of the disputed house on the basis of family arrangement. Thus, these landlords' only intention is to eject the respondent and to induct a new tenant at a higher rent. The grounds alleged in the petition are all false and it is just a pretext to evict him. Respondent-petitioner's learned counsel valiantly argued that no doubt the tenant has admitted that his wife but has purchased house No. 1285 in the same street in the year 1984 and he is residing therein along with his wife but under Section 13 (3) (a) (iv) he cannot be evicted from the demised premises which is in his occupation. He assiduously argued that under Section 2 (h) tenant is defined, meaning thereby "any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for a building or rented land and includes a tenant continuing in possession after the termination of his tenancy and in the event of such person's (tenant) death, such as are mentioned in the Schedule appended to this Act and who were ordinarily residing with him at the time of his death,. . . . . . . . " He contended that therefore wife cannot be treated as tenant during the life time of her husband. Only after his death, she can be treated as a tenant provided she was living with the tenant in the demised premises. According to him, the house owned by wife cannot be termed as house owned or erected by the tenant. In support of his contention, he has relied on Smt. Revti Devi v. Kishan Lal, 1970 All India Rent Control Journal 417.