TIRLOK CHAND Vs. RAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenants' revision petition against whom the eviction order has been passed by both the authorities below.

(2.) The landlord Raj Kumar adopted son of Sher Singh, the original landlord, filed the present ejectment application on June 7, 1979, for the ejectment of the tenants from the shop, in dispute, inter alia on the ground that the landlord required the same bona fide for his personal use as provided under Sub-Sec. (3A) of S.13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter called the Act), inserted in the principal Act by Haryana Act No. 16 of 1978, and came into force with effect from May 8, 1978. In the written statement, it was pleaded that the premises were leased out for carrying on business and even now, business was being carried on and, thus, there was no change of user. On the question of personal requirement, it was stated that the landlord had already in his possession a shop of utensils in Moti Bazar, Hissar, and a godown nearby. The mother and sisters of the landlord had also let out several shops to other persons and as such, the landlord did not require the shop, in dispute, for his personal necessity. The date of birth of the landlord which was claimed to be June 8, 1958, was also disputed. It was pleaded that the ejectment application was time-barred in view of the provisions of Sub-Sec. (3-A) of S.13 of the Act. The learned Rent Controller found that the landlord bona fide required the premises for his personal use. As regards the age of the landlord, it was held that his date of birth was June 8, 1958. Therefore, the eviction application filed on June 7, 1979, was within limitation under Sub-Sec. (3-A) of S.13 of the Act. The ground of change of user also raised by the landlord, was negatived. Consequently, the ejectment application was allowed and the eviction order was passed against the tenant. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller and thus, maintained the order ejecting the tenant from the demised premises. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenant has filed this revision petition in this Court.

(3.) During the pendency of this revision petition, the tenants moved Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 2483-CII of 1987, to bring on record the subsequent events which have taken place during the pendency of this revision petition. According to the allegations made therein, the landlord had constructed eight commercial shops on the property purchased in the name of his wife Sushila Devi and his minor son Deepak Kumar who is aged about 10 years. Each shop measures about 9' X 14'. Out of those shops, two shops have been let out recently. There are about 30 shops in between the disputed shop and the 8 newly constructed shops. According to the tenants, out of the said eight shops, six are still lying vacant. In the reply filed thereto by the landlord by way of an affidavit, the allegations made by the tenants have been controverted. It has been stated by him that the said shops had not been constructed by him as alleged; rather the same had been constructed by his wife Sushila Devi and son Deepak Kumar. It has been further stated that the said shops had been built by her and his son by utilising their own funds. He himself did not contribute a single penny for the construction of the said shops. However, it was clarified that in reality there were seven shops and not eight shops as mentioned in the application by the tenants. It was denied that any shop was let out to anybody. As regards the sale of two shops earlier to the filing of the ejectment application, it was stated that they were located in residential area and the agreement to sell was entered into on Dec. 13, 1977, in order to raise some funds for his and his family's survival. This was done when Sub-Sec. (3-A) of S.13 had not been incorporated in the Act.