MADAN MOHAN KAPHAI Vs. SH AMAR NATH MALHOTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Madan Mohan Kaphai has preferred this revision petition against the order dated 15. 12. 1993 passed by the appellate Authority, Ambala, whereby eviction order has been passed against the petitioner from the premises in dispute.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1 landlord Amar Nath Malhotra sought ejectment of petitioner Madan Mohan Kapahi and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 from the premises in question i. e. House No. 567/a, Masjid Mohalla Saudagar Bazar, Ambala Cantt, on the grounds inter alia that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are in arrears of rent from 1. 9. 1985 to 31. 10. 1985; that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have sublet the premises to the petitioner Madan Mohan Kapahi; and that he requires the tenanted premises for his own use and occupation as he has no other accommodation in the area of Ambala Cantt.

(3.) THE ejectment application was contested by petitioner Madan Mohan Kaphai. In the written statement filed by him, he alleged that he is a tenant in the premises in question and has been paying the rent to the landlord-respondent No. 1 who has been accepting the rent from the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are not the tenants. He further stated that he was previously working as a Manager with the firm (respondent No. 3) which was ceased to exist and the landlord has made up the story of alleged subletting. He further stated that he tendered the arrears- of rent along with Interest and costs, but the same were refused by the landlord in the Court. The rent sent earlier through money order was also not accepted by the landlord. He further stated that he is in occupation of the premises in question since the very inception of the tenancy. He further stated that the landlord is permanently settled in Delhi in his old age with his son and had shifted to Delhi a few years back in order to settle there and left Ambala for good with all his bag and baggage and sold away his residential building where he was residing since long. In fact, the landlord wanted to sell the house in question and the eviction application has been filed so that he may be able to get a better price of the premises in question. It was denied that the petitioner is not occupying any other residential building in the urban area concerned and has not vacated any residential building in the same. It was also denied that the relations between the landlord and his son are strained.