HET RAM Vs. VIRBHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS strange as it may appear but strictly speaking the tendency and frequency of the tenants by retaining the possession of rented premises after the order of eviction, by misusing the process of law, and leaving the landlords in lurch, have been tremendously increasing day by day. The case in hand is a burning example of such like cases.

(2.) THE matrix of the facts culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal, of the present revision petition filed by Het Ram son of Matu Ram- petitioner-tenant (hereinafter to be referred as the tenant) and emanating from the record is, that originally Virbhan son of Fakir Chand-respondent- landlord (hereinafter to be referred as the landlord) filed an ejectment petition No. 57 on 12.09.1992 against the tenant, invoking the provisions of Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") on the ground of non-payment of rent, impaired the value and utility of the shop by demolishing the floor and walls and the tenant used to create nuisance in the locality by giving bad names.

(3.) THE parties produced their oral as well as documentary evidence in order to substantiate their respective pleaded cases. The Rent Controller held that the rate of rent of the demised premises was Rs. 600/- per month and as the tenant did not make the payment and was defaulter, therefore, he was liable to be ejected on the ground of non-payment of rent. As a sequel of the findings, the Rent Controller vide order dated 19.08.1997 accepted the ejectment petition and directed the tenant to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises to the landlord within two months from the date of order.