R P MEHRA Vs. DHEERAJ DEMBLA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed challenging judgment dated 29.01.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palwal as well as judgment dated 16.05.2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Appellate authority, Rent Controller, Palwal.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the case are that respondent No. 1 landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 seeking eviction of the petitioner and respondents No. 2 and 3 from the demised premises i.e. a residential house situated in Palwal as detailed in the petition. It is pleaded by the respondent landlord that the house in dispute was originally owned by one Rattan Lal Diwan. It was purchased by the respondent landlord vide registered sale deed dated 18.02.2014. Respondent Syndicate Bank had taken the premises on rent vide agreement dated 01.08.2002. Lease deed was executed between the previous owner Rattan Lal Diwan and Syndicate Bank Sikri through its Branch Manager R.P. Mehra i.e. the present petitioner. The house was rented out only for a period of eleven months. The present petitioner was transferred from Sikri but he continued to reside in the demised premises and did not vacate the same even after the expiry of lease period. Rattan Lal Diwan passed away. The house in dispute was inherited by his sons Chander Mohan, Jatinder Mohan and daughter-inlaw Smt. Asha Rani wife of Inder Mohan in equal shares. The property was sold to respondent landlord on 18.02.2014. It was pleaded that the tenants were in arrears of rent. Moreover, respondent No. 1 after execution of the sale deed had got married and he required the house in question for his own personal bona fide necessity. Respondent No. 1 claimed to be residing in a small house in Inderpuri, Palwal alongwith his father. Said house was stated to belong to the father of respondent No. 1. It was further pleaded that respondent No. 1 had three sisters. The house in question was not sufficient of the entire family. Legal notice was served upon the tenants but they failed to hand over vacant possession neither was the rent paid.

(3.) Whether the petition is bad for misjoinder of unnecessary parties?OPR