KRISHAN LAL Vs. NIRMAL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KRISHAN Lal, tenant, preferred a petition under Section 9 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), in which he prayed that he is tenant in the building owned by Nirmal Kumar. Details and description of the building were given in the head note of the petition. It was stated therein that the premises have been taken on rent at a monthly rent of Rs. 155/- along with taxes. It was stated in the application that the house lack civic amenities and public hygiene, therefore, a flush with water facility be provided as petitioner was having open latrine on the roof which is not cleaned daily. It was further stated therein that potable water is not available and the drinking water is to be brought from outside. It was further stated that on the eastern side of the house in question, a sewerage line and water pipe has already been laid and all the nearby houses are having facilities. Registered notice was issued to the landlord calling upon him to provide the above said amenities. When the landlord had not responded then the petition was filed in the Court seeking the above said relief.

(2.) LANDLORD appeared. He filed reply and took a preliminary objection that the application is not maintainable. However, relationship of landlord and tenant was admitted. It was stated that house in question was an old construction and the same was required to be re-built and no facility as stated by the tenant have been provided by the Municipal Corporation and the house was required by him for the use and occupation of his brother. Learned Rent Controller had framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the facilities as claimed by him ? OPP 2. Whether the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition ? OPR

(3.) RELIEF . 3. Tenant had examined PW.2 Amir Chand Taneja who proved site plan Ex.P1 to show that the sewerage and water pipe line are passing in the street in front of the house in question. He further stated that these amenities have not been provided in the demised premises. 4. Landlord himself appeared as RW.1. He stated that when the tenancy was created, these facilities were not available in the locality and now the petitioner has no right to claim the same and the construction of the house is very old and the same requires reconstruction.