RAJ KUMAR Vs. MURLI DHARTL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's revision petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below.

(2.) THE shop, in dispute, was let out originally by Ram Kumar, the father of the present landlord Raj Kumar. The said Ram Kumar died on March 26, 1978, whereas the present ejectment application was filed in July, 1978, on the allegations that Raj Kumar was born on July 5, 1960, and that the ejectment application was being filed within three years of his attaining age of eighteen years, as provided under sub-section (3-A) of Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, (hereinafter called the Act). According to the landlord, the rate of rent originally agreed to was Rs. 100/- per month, but later on it was enhanced to Rs. 800/- per month. The shop in question was in a dilapidated condition. An agreement took place between the father of Raj Kumar, and the tenant, according to which the tenant would get the shop re-constructed and the costs of construction were assessed at Rs. 4,800/- which were to be adjusted against the rent and that the same had since been adjusted. The tenant had failed to pay the rent from March 1, 1973 to June 30, 1978. Thus, according to the landlord, the tenant was in arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 51,200/- and Rs. 5,120/- as the arrears of taxes. It was further pleaded that the tenant had sublet the shop, in favour of Chand Cloth Merchant. The landlord needed the shop for his personal necessity. Both the brothers were in need of the shop for their own businesses. The other brother Mahabir Parshad filed a separate ejectment application, giving rise to Civil Revision Petition No. 2014 of 1986. The application was contested inter alia on the ground that the father of the landlord had already received advance rent vide agreement dated February 25, 1971 and March 21, 1974, respectively, up to October 2, 1983, and the corresponding entries were also entered in the bahi of the tenant. Therefore, the petition was premature and not maintainable. The tenant also denied that the landlord required the shop for his personal occupation. The learned Rent Controller found that the tenant had paid rent up to October 2, 1983, and therefore, was not in arrears of rent. It was further found that the application was premature because the tenant had paid the rent up to October 2, 1983. In view of these findings, the ejectment application was dismissed on December 21, 1981. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller though no finding as such was given as to whether the landlord required the demised premises for the personal use or not. According to the learned Appellate Authority, the ejectment application was premature as the tenant had already paid advance rent up to October 2, 1983.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the tenant-respondent submitted that the learned Rent Controller found that landlord did not require the premises for his personal use as he was working with his brother and that being so, the ejectment application has been rightly dismissed by the authorities below.