R.P. MEHRA Vs. DHEERAJ DEMBLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed challenging judgment dtd. 29/1/2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palwal as well as judgment dtd. 16/5/2017 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 Sec. 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 dtd. 18/2/2014. Respondent - Syndicate Bank had taken the premises on rent vide agreement dtd. 1/8/2002. 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-in law Smt. Asha Rani wife of Inder Mohan in equal shares. The property was sold to respondent - landlord on 18/2/2014. 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 along-with 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.) Written statement was filed on behalf of Syndicate Bank, Regional Office as well as the Branch at Sikri taking a stand that the present petitioner is the tenant in the said premises and they were needlessly impleaded. The present petitioner filed a separate written statement while stating that material particulars as required under the statute were not revealed. Moreover, the landlord was claimed to be a property dealer having various residential as well as commercial building in the area. Bona fide personal necessity of the landlord was disputed while stating that the landlord had no desire to live in the premises in question and purchase of the property is a speculative venture. It was further pleaded that the present petitioner R.P. Mehra was a tenant on the premises in dispute since 1994 in his personal capacity. Respondent - Syndicate Bank had no concern with the tenancy of the rented premise. Previous owner Rattan Lal was alleged to have orally agreed to sell the house in dispute to R.P. Mehra - petitioner. House tax and electricity charges were, thus, being paid by him. A sum of more than Rs.3.00 lakhs was spent by the petitioner on the said premises. Furthermore, Rattan Lal Diwan had assured the present petitioner that he would compensate him to the extent of about Rs.3.00 lakhs out of the sale price of the house in question. At the same time, it was stated that in case the landlord was successful in proving his ownership qua the premises in dispute, the present petitioner would accept him as the landlord. Dismissal of the petition was prayed for.