LAJPAT Vs. ASHOK KUMAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner - tenant is aggrieved of judgment dated 21.01.2012 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Rewari as well as judgment dated 29.04.2015 passed by the learned appellate authority, Rewari. Learned Rent Controller has allowed petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act (for short 'the Act') filed by the respondents and ordered ejectment of the petitioner from the demised premises. Appeal filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed by the learned appellate Authority, Rewari vide judgment dated 29.04.2015.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the case are that petition under Section 13 of the Act was filed by the respondents seeking eviction of the petitioner from the demised premises i.e. a shop forming part of the building duly described in the petition. Eviction of the tenant was sought on the grounds of non-payment of arrears of rent, building having been rendered unfit and unsafe for human habitation and for bona fide personal necessity. It was pleaded that respondent No. 1 Ashok Kumar son of Jagan Nath required the premises for his son Saurabh who wanted to set up the business of Computers (Hardware). Saurabh was claimed to be gaining proficiency in Computer (Hardware) working at Gurgaon. It was further pleaded that respondent Ashok Kumar also got premises adjacent to the demised premises vacated. The said premises too were in a dilapidated condition and the landlords wanted to demolish both the shops and construct anew. It was further averred that the landlords would construct two shops for business, in which Saurabh and Harish would conduct their business. Demised premises were claimed to be 100 years old, constructed with old stones. The building was stated to be in a dilapidated condition, unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Site plan depicted the demised premises as well as the adjacent shop, which was vacated by order of the court of competent jurisdiction. Judgment dated 20.03.2004 passed by the learned appellate Authority in the said proceedings was placed on record.

(3.) Petition was resisted by the present petitioner while taking various preliminary objections and refuting the averments on merits. It was stated that the demised premises were taken on rent from Jagan Nath i.e. the father of respondents No. 1 to 3, 5 to 7 and husband of respondent No. 4 in the present petition. After the death of Jagan Nath, rent was being paid to Harish Kumar. Rate of rent was contested besides the petitioner's liability to pay the house tax. It was denied that the present petitioner was in arrears of rent or that the premises in question were dilapidated, unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Personal necessity of the landlords was also denied while stating that Saurabh son of Ashok Kumar was working at a Call Centre namely Convergys India Private Limited at Gurgaon. Moreover, the landlords were alleged to have two other shops at Railway road, Rewari. Business of shoes and slippers was carried on in one shop and in other shop business of grocery was carried out. It was, thus, pleaded that bona fide personal necessity of the landlord did not exist. Dismissal of the petition was prayed for.