RITU MITTAL AND ORS. Vs. KAILASH CHAND BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This instant revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for setting aside the order dated 9.3.2018 passed by the Rent Controller, Bhiwani, whereby the application (Annexure P/2) filed by the respondent/tenant for dismissing the ejectment petition filed by the petitioners has been allowed.

(2.) In brief, the facts are that the petitioners No. 1 and 2 herein filed an ejectment petition under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 on the ground that the respondent herein is in arrears of rent. During the pendency of the ejectment proceedings, an application was filed by the respondent/tenant stating that during the pendency of the proceedings, one Sanjay Mittal, who is none other than the husband of petitioner No.1, has purchased the shop in dispute from the original petitioners and had moved application for being impleaded as party, which was allowed and he was impleaded as petitioner No.3. Therefore, it was contended that since Sanjay Mittal--petitioner No.3, has secured the ownership of the shop in dispute and he stands substituted in place of the original petitioners No.1 and 2, they have lost their right in the property and as such they have no locus standi to keep the ejectment petition alive on the ground of non-payment of rent and the same deserves to be dismissed. As already noticed, the application was allowed and consequently the petition too was dismissed. Aggrieved against the said order, the instant revision petition has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the application filed by the respondent was allowed on the ground that the original petitioners ceased to have any right in the property in dispute and petitioner No.3 could not claim arrears of rent prior to him becoming the owner. It is further contended that while allowing the application for dismissal of the ejectment petition, there is no finding on merit and the Rent Controller had taken a very hyper technical approach. The ejectment petition stands decided without returning any finding on merit of the dispute. It is contended that the rights between the parties have to be determined keeping in view the position at the time of filing of the petition and not on the basis of any subsequent events.