CHANDER KANTA Vs. KRISHAN LAL SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of C.R. Nos. 554 and 555 of 1986 as common questions of law and fact are involved therein.

(2.) C .R. No. 554 of 1986 is directed against the judgment dated 10.10.1985 passed in appeal by the learned Appellate Authority affirming whereby an application for ejectment of the tenant-respondent filed by the petitioner under section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act') was dismissed. In the application it was, inter-alia, alleged that the respondent was a tenant on Chobara-cum room along with a kitchen of residential house No. M.C. No. 285, Ward No. 10, situated in New Bazar, Thanesar City, at a monthly rent of Rs. 75/- besides house-tax; that he had not paid the arrears of rent since 22.3.1982; that he has changed the user of the Chobara; that it was taken by him on rent for residential purposes but has converted the same for commercial purposes; and that the petitioner requires the said Chobara for her own use. The application was contested by the respondent. He tendered the arrears of rent along with interest and costs on the first date of hearing. He however, disputed the rate of rent claimed by the petitioner. According to him, the building of which the Chobara in dispute is a part was earlier owned by Atam Parkash from whom the respondent-tenant had taken the said Chobara on rent at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month for running a type-writing training college. There was no fresh agreement at any stage with the petitioner, whereby the respondent had agreed to raise the rent to Rs. 75/- per month besides house-tax. The change of user of the premises was thus denied. The plea of the petitioner that she needs the premises for her personal use was also disputed.

(3.) IN both the above-mentioned cases, the learned counsel for the petitioner made a statement before the learned Rent Controller on 19.1.1985 in identical terms to the effect that if the respondent takes an oath in Ratgal temple to the effect that after the petitioner had purchased the house the rent was not fixed at 75/- per month besides house-tax and that the father of the petitioner had not issued any receipt at the rate of Rs. 75/- per month to him, the respondent shall continue as a tenant in the premises at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month and the rent already paid by him in excess shall be adjusted towards house rent and house tax for the future period and the application of the petitioner for the eviction of the respondent should be dismissed. If, however, the respondent does not take such an oath an order of ejectment from the premises should be passed against him. A local Commissioner was duly appointed to administer oath to both the respondents in the temple. If they came forwards to take such an oath. He submitted his report to the effect that the respondent in each of the two cases has taken oath in the temple that after the purchase of the property by the petitioner rent of the premises in dispute was never settled at Rs. 75/- per month besides houses tax and that he did not pay rent at the said rate to the father of the petitioner nor did he secure any such receipt from the father of the petitioner. In view of this report, the learned Rent Controller vide separate orders dated 19.1.1985 dismissed both the ejectment applications. As already mentioned above, appeals filed by the petitioner against the respondents were dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order which are now the subject-matter of these revision petitions.