OM PARKASH Vs. SAT PAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Om Parkash Rohila has filed the present petition directed against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Kurukshetra dated 6.9.1988 and of the Appellate Authority, Kurukshetra dated 16.3.1991. The learned Rent Controller had dismissed the petition for eviction. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed.

(2.) The relevant facts are that petitioner had filed the eviction application against the respondents with respondent to the suit premises. It 'was asserted that the petitioner has joined as Technical Assistant in Madhya Pradesh and had rented the suit premises to respondent No. 1 for residential purpose i.e. Chaubara and compound while the shop was let for cloth merchant business. The agreed rate of rent was Rs. 250/- p.m. The eviction was claimed on the ground that the arrears of rent have not been paid from 1.3.1980. Respondent No. 1 has sublet the Chaubara and the compound on the first floor to respondent No.2 without the consent in writing of the petitioner. Respondent No.2 has set up his office therein and thereby the user has been changed. It was further asserted that respondent No.1 has committed acts which are impairing the value and utility of the premises. The petitioner bonafide required the suit premises for himself and members of his family because he is not in occupation of any residential building in the urban area.

(3.) Joint written statement was filed. The petition for eviction was contested. It was alleged that the property in question was let out by Munshi Ram and Sumer Chand to the father of the respondents. The agreed rate of rent was Rs. 25/- P.M. It was asserted that it was respondent No.1 and Joint Hindu Family which is paying the rent regularly. The property in question is being used as Joint Hindu Family. It was denied that respondent No. 2 is using the Chaubara or the room for his office. The Chaubara was stated to be used for safety of the business. One member of the family simply sleeps in the Chaubara. Respondent No.2 has his separate house in Housing Board Colony, Kurukshetra. It was denied that the petitioner bonafide requires the suit premises.