DEV SAMAJ SOCIETY Vs. BIMLA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Dev Samaj Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, through Sudarshan Kumar, Principal, Dev Samaj Senior Model School, Ambala City preferred a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 for eviction of respondent tenants. In the eviction petition, it was stated that the petitioner - society, being a registered society, vide appropriate resolution passed, was competent to file eviction petition through Sudarshan Kumar, Principal, Dev Samaj Senior Model School, Ambala City. It was stated that the petitioner - society was owner and landlord of the demised premises. It was further stated that initially, late Mr. Ganesh Dass Khanna, husband of respondent No. 1 and father of remaining respondents, has taken the shop in question, on rent. He died and the respondents stepped into his shoes and have inherited the tenancy rights from him. It was further stated that respondents were paying monthly rent @ Rs. 160/-. Following grounds were pleaded for seeking ejectment of the tenant : (a) Respondents have not paid or tendered the rent w.e.f. November, 2000 to March, 2002; (b) Respondents, without the written consent of the landlord, have broken the floor of the tenanted shop and raised its level by constructing the floor afresh; (c) Respondents, without the written consent of the landlord, have also damaged the walls of the shop in question and raised the height of the premises by demolishing the roof and thereby they have made structural changes in the shop in question; (d) That the respondents, without the written consent of the landlord, affixed a new shutter in the shop after removing the earlier fixed iron shutter. This act of the tenant-respondents has also impaired the value and utility of the demised premises. Therefore on this ground also, eviction was sought. Notice was issued by the Court. Respondents caused their appearance. Written statement was submitted. In the same, taking preliminary objections, it was stated that the petition is not legally maintainable.

(2.) ALL averments and pleadings made in the eviction petition, on merit were denied. However, the fact of payment of rent by the tenant regularly was admitted. Respondents denied that the earlier fixed shutter was removed and new one was fixed. It was stated that in fact the petitioner has concealed all the true and material facts. An old structure was already in existence on the roof of all the shops and the landlord approached all the tenants to demolish the old structure, as Dev Samaj Society required to build suitable building in place of the old structure. All the tenants, including the respondents agreed and the old structure was demolished. It was further stated that all the tenants requested the petitioner-landlord to raise the level of floors of their shops as in rainy season, water used to enter in the shops due to rise of road level. Landlord took about two months to complete this entire process of raising the floor level of shops. Thus, the question of taking written consent did not arise, as the whole process was done by the petitioner- landlord.

(3.) PETITIONER had led no evidence in rebuttal.