PAWAN KUMAR Vs. KULDIP KUMAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition to impugn the order passed by the Appellate Authority, Bhiwani, is filed with a delay of 86 days. For the reasons mentioned in C.M. No. 6659 CII of 2008, delay is condoned and the revision has been heard on merits.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that the landlord purchased three shops vide three registered sale deeds from different persons. The petitioner was a tenant under the previous landlords and thereafter became tenant under the respondents. The respondents filed an ejectment petition on the grounds of non -payment of rent and on the ground that the petitioner has ceased to occupy the room in question for more than four months without sufficient cause. The respondents alleged that they were owner -cum -landlord of 1/3rd share of the Chaubaras. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were owners of 1/3 share whereas respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were owners of remaining 1/3rd share. The ejectment petition was filed being co -sharers. The petitioner -tenant appeared in response to notice and filed reply. He raised a plea that the premises under tenancy were not properly explained. The petitioner pleaded that tenancy of both the rooms was separate and not joint with a further plea that they should have filed separate petition for ejectment The case set up by the petitioner is that he took the room situated on the eastern side with Verandah initially and lateron took the room situated on eastern side at the rent of Rs. 60.37P per month and Rs. 40.13P per month respectively. He, thus, pleaded that both the tenancies were separate. He has also raised a plea that two rooms were constructed over three shops and shops on the eastern and western sides were purchased by different persons and in these circumstances none could claim ownership over the portion in the centre.

(3.) THE only submission made before me by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is mat separate rent petitions were required to be filed as the tenancy in respect of the rooms was separate and the single petition was not maintainable, which aspect has not been properly appreciated and dealt with by the Courts below. I am not impressed with this argument raised by counsel for the petitioner. In fact, this very argument was raised and squarely met and dealt with by the appellate authority. It was pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that the Chaubaras are constructed over three shops, which were purchased by the landlord -respondents. Two rooms covered the roofs of three shops. Some portion of both the rooms was falling on the central shops. It is on this basis that the petitioner had pleaded that no one would be the owner of the shop and, thus, could not be bifurcated to seek ejectment. Both the rooms, according to the petitioner, were taken separately and, thus, joint petition could not have been filed.