JAI PARKASH Vs. OM PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved against the order dtd. 21/2/2003 of eviction passed by the Rent Controller, Hansi and against the order dtd. 28/9/2004 of the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal, the instant petition has been filed.

(2.) In brief, the facts as stated are that an eviction petition was filed by Om Parkash, the respondent herein, on the grounds that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was stated that the petitioner tenant defaulted and is in arrears of rent from 1/6/1998 at the rate of Rs.265.00 per month, which had not been paid despite repeated demands. It was also stated that the shop was required by the landlord for starting business for his son Sanjeev Kumar, while further stating that the said shop had become unfit for human habitation and can fall at any time.

(3.) Evidence was led by both parties concerned and thereafter the Rent Controller, decided the issues. Issue No. 1 was decided against the petitioner holding him to be in arrears of rent. However, on the question of personal necessity, the plea was found to be not genuine, even the plea set up that the shop was in dilapidated condition was not believed, as there was no cogent evidence available on the record. Ejectment of the petitioner came to be ordered on the ground that he was in arrears of rent. The order of ejectment was affirmed in appeal. Aggrieved, the instant petition has been filed.