DHANPATI Vs. SATISH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the Judgment dated 29.10.1985 passed by the learned Appellate Authority under Section 15(4) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1973, (for short' the Act') directing ejectment of the tenant-petitioners from the shop in dispute situated in Jind Mandi. Satish Kumar respondent had filed an application on 20.12.1978 for ejectment of Sukh Dial from the shop in dispute by invoking the provisions of Section 13 of the Act. He claims himself to be the landlord of the premises in dispute and alleged that Sukh Dial was a tenant therein by virtue of rent note dated 18.7.1957 (Exhibit A 3). It has come during the course of evidence that the respondent along with his uncle Devi Dial was the owner of the said shop. Later on the respondent purchased 1/2 share of Devi Dial in the said property vide sale deed dated 20.3.1975 (Exhibit AW 1/A). On this basis the claimed the relationship of landlord and tenant between him and Sukh Dial. During the pendency of the application before the Rent Controller, Sukh Dial died and his son Atma Ram was brought on record as his legal representative. Still later Atma Ram also died and the petitioners herein were impleaded as his legal representatives they inherited the statutory tenancy from Atma Ram.

(2.) THE ejectment of the petitioner was sought by the respondent inter-alia, on the grounds that the tenant was in arrears of rent; that the shop had been let out for doing business or trade but the tenant had started his residence in a portion of the demised premises and he had also started using the shop for running an industry by installing boring machine, Jali manufacturing machine and a machine for manufacturing pegs (Pawas) for the cots, that the tenant had fixed a shutter in the shop by dividing the same into two portions and had thus materially impaired its value and utility. The learned Rent Controller, dismissed the application of the respondent by holding that neither there was any conversion of user of the premises nor had it been proved that the value and utility of the shop had been materially impaired as alleged. The arrears of rent as claimed in the application had been tendered on the first date of hearing and thus, that ground became non-existent. As a consequence, the claim of eviction made by the respondent was negatived.

(3.) THE eviction of the petitioners has been ordered on the following grounds which, according to the learned Appellate Authority stand established :-