JAGDISH LAL Vs. KRISHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a civil revision and has been directed against the judgment dated 8.2.1983 passed by the appellate authority, Ambala, under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), who set aside the order of the Rent Controller, Jagadhri, dated 23.8.1982, who allowed the application of the landlord 'Jagdish Lal under Section 13 of the Act.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that Jagdish Lal, petitioner, filed an ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Act against Krishan Lal alleging that he was the owner of the shop marked A, B, C, D shown red in the site plan attached bearing Municipal No. 1059 bounded as, in the North-property of the petitioner, south-property of the petitioner under the tenancy of Ram Chander and house of Lal Jai Parkash, west-property of Lala Ram Sarup, and east-Gali Press Wali. It is alleged by the landlord that the respondent Krishan Lal was a tenant under the petitioner in the shop in question for the last 7 years on a monthly rental of Rs. 40/- exclusive of House Tax. The shop in question was purchased by the petitioner from Om Parkash son of Peeru Mal vide sale deed dated 25.3.1976. The respondent is a tenant under the petitioner since 25.3.1976, i.e., the date of purchase of the property. It was next pleaded that the respondent is liable to be ejected from the shop in question on the ground that he had neither paid the rent and house tax nor tendered the arrears of rent and house tax of the above shop w.e.f. 1.6.1976 to 30.11.1979, i.e. Rs. 1,640-00 besides house tax and interest despite several requests; the respondent has impaired materially the value and utility of the shop by breaking the floor and walls etc. and the respondent has created nuisance in the neighbourhood of the said building by using acid etc. The respondent was called upon several times to vacate the demised premises, but to no effect. Hence the petition.

(3.) Notice of this petition was given to the tenant who contested the same and filed a written statement. According to the tenant, he was never informed that the shop in question has been purchased by the petitioner from the previous landlord. The respondent was a tenant under Om Parkash on a monthly rental of Rs. 11/-, inclusive of House Tax. The respondent is a tenant under the petitioner in respect of the shop in question after its purchase on the same terms and conditions. It was also pleaded by the respondent that he had paid rent to the previous landlord upto 23.3.1976 against the valid receipt. The petitioner could not charge the rent w.e.f. 21.6.1976 and the rent beyond three years on the date of filing of the application, cannot be claimed by the petitioner.