RAJESH KUMAR Vs. AMIT KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein are aggrieved against the order of eviction dtd. 30/10/2017 passed by the Rent Controller, Batala as well as the order of the Appellate Authority dtd. 21/11/2018 dismissing the appeal and affirming the eviction of the petitioners herein.

(2.) In brief the facts are, that the demised shop was originally taken on rent by Raj Kumar son of Sohan Lal, father/predecessor in interest of the appellants herein at a monthly rent of Rs.90.00 on the basis of a rent note dtd. 11/10/1971 from its owner. After the death of said Gurcharan Singh, his sons namely Gurdeep Singh and Ajit Singh became the owners of the residential cum commercial building complex including the demised shop and Raj Kumar became a tenant under the said Gurdeep Singh and Ajit Singh. The relationship of the landlord and tenant existed between Gurdeep Singh etc. and Raj Kumar tenant. The rent was enhanced to Rs.600.00 per month exclusive house tax. The landlords Gurdeep Singh and Ajit Singh sold the entire building complex including the demised premises in favour of the applicant and his associates Shri Kewal Krishan and Smt. Anu Suri on the basis of a registered sale deed dtd. 27/6/2007, thus they became owners in the possession of the building complex including the demised premises. After the sale deed, Raj Kumar tenant became tenant under applicant etc. by operation of law and the relationship of landlord and tenant came to exist between applicant etc. and Raj Kumar tenant. Raj Kumar tenant also died leaving behind the respondents, his sons, his legal heirs, who started working in the shop in dispute and were/are in actual, physical, exclusive and effective control of the demised shop having inherited the tenancy right of their father and after the death of Raj Kumar, the respondents became tenant under the applicants etc. The relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the applicant and respondents and the respondents are liable to be ejected from the rented shop on the ground of non payment of rent, non payment of house tax, bona fide requirement for personal use. Finally prayer has been made that an order of ejectment of the respondents from the demised shop be passed.

(3.) Upon notice, the respondents appeared and filed their written statement raising preliminary objections that the present application filed by Amit Kumar alone is legally not maintainable under the eyes of law. It was alleged by the applicant himself in the application that he is co-owner along with his associates Kewal Krishan and Smt. Anu Suri on the basis of registered sale deed dtd. 27/6/2007. So, being a co-owner applicant was not entitled to file eviction petition alone, application is bad for mis-joinder or non joinder of necessary parties, the applicant had concealed the material facts from the court, the applicant being co-owner has no locus standi to file the present application. The applicant has no bona fide need warranting eviction of respondents from demised premises. On merits, it was admitted that the demised premises is under the possession of the replying respondents. It was denied that they or their father ever took the same on rent at Rs.600.00 per month. It was submitted that the father of the respondent took the demised premises on rent at the rate of Rs.90.00 per month vide rent note dtd. 11/10/1971. The father of the respondents was paying rent @ Rs.90.00 per month to his landlord against receipts. It was also denied that Raj Kumar ever paid Rs.600.00 per month as rent to Gurdeep Singh etc. It was also denied that the respondent was also liable to make payment of house tax as levied by Municipal Council from time to time. It was admitted that after the death of Raj Kumar, respondents are in possession of the demised premises and inherited the tenancy right of their father and they became the tenant under the owner of demised premises. The relationship of the landlord and tenant existed between the owner of the demised premises and replying respondents. It was denied that father or the respondents have neither paid nor tendered the arrears of the rent since 27/6/2017 amounting to Rs.43,800.00. The respondents are not liable to pay such amount as the same has been calculated @ Rs.600.00 per month. The respondents are not liable to pay the house tax of the demised premises. It was denied that applicant requires the demised premises bona fide for his own use and occupation. Rest all other averments made in the petition were denied and prayer for dismissal of the petition was made.