CITY MRI CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. AMARJEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners/tenants are aggrieved of decision dtd. 18/12/2015, passed by the learned Rent Controller, Faridabad, whereby petition under Sec. 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short 'Act') has been allowed as well as judgement dtd. 28/2/2018 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Faridabad, whereby appeal preferred by the petitioners, has been dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts as pleaded in the petition under Sec. 13 of the Act filed by the respondents-landlords are that they claimed to be owners of the properties/tenanted premises as detailed in the petition. It was pleaded that the landlords rented out the tenanted premises to the tenants (petitioners) vide lease agreement dtd. 3/3/2004, which was duly registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Faridabad on 3/3/2004. Premises were claimed to be rented out to the tenants for a period of five years i.e. till 2/3/2009. Details of the lease money was duly mentioned besides the percentage of periodic increase of the lease amount. It was pleaded that the lease came to an end on 2/3/2009 and was not extended. The tenants however refused to vacate the premises and occupied the same illegally and unlawfully thereafter. Legal notice dtd. 14/4/2009, was served on the tenants whereby the lease was determined and terminated, calling upon the tenants to pay a sum of Rs.1,52,746.00 per month as compensation/damages for illegal use and occupation of the premises in question. Eviction of the tenants was sought on the ground of nonpayment of arrears of rent as well as personal bona fide necessity of the landlords. It was pleaded that the landlords required the premises for its use by Jasjeet Singh, who had completed his masters of business in finance and wanted to run a finance company on the premises in question. It was further stated that the landlords had not vacated any such premises anywhere in the urban area concerned, from the commencement of the Act without any sufficient cause and reason. Eviction of the tenants was sought.

(3.) Petition was resisted by the tenants (present petitioners). Various preliminary objections were taken in the written statement. Averments on merits were controverted. It was stated that all the landlords had let out their independent premises to the tenants separately at the rate of Rs.6300.00 per month w.e.f., 3/3/2004 for a period of 12 years ending on 2/3/2016, though one rent agreement was executed collectively by the landlords. Huge amount had been spent by the tenants in establishing the MRI centre on the premises in question. It was denied that the arrears of rent were due towards the landlords. It was denied that the premises were required for personal bona fide necessity of the petitioners or that the tenant was liable to be evicted from the premises in question on any of the grounds raised by the landlords. Dismissal of the petition was prayed for.