KUNTI Vs. MOOL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition against the impugned orders passed by both the authorities below ordering eviction of the petitioner-tenant from House No. 12, Purani Gali Mandi, Ram Bagh Road, Ambala Cantt. in proceedings under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "Haryana Rent Act").

(2.) The brief facts, relevant to the present Us, are that the respondent-landlord filed an ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Rent Act for eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the premises in dispute i.e. House No. 12, Purani Gali Mandi, Ram Bagh Road, Ambala Cantt. It was averred in the ejectment petition that the respondent is a landlord and the petitioner is a tenant under him in respect of the premises in dispute since 2009. The rate of rent was settled at Rs.2,000/- per month at the time of commencement of the tenancy. It was further averred that the petitioner-tenant is a habitual defaulter in payment of rent and that she had never paid the rent on time and had, therefore, made herself liable for eviction from the premises in dispute on the ground of non-payment of rent since March 2010. However, the respondent-landlord restricted his claim to rent for a period of three years. Thus, the respondent-landlord claimed rent from the petitioner-tenant with effect from July 2012 to June 2015 at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month besides taxes and electricity charges.

(3.) The petitioner-tenant appeared and filed her written statement raising grounds qua maintainability and suppression of true and material facts. On merits, the petitioner-tenant contested the ejectment petition stating that it has been filed only to harass her and that she is residing in the property bearing House No. 10, Purani Gali Mandi, Ambala Cantt. for the last 40 years being it's owner, whereas, the respondent-landlord is claiming this Property No. 10 as Property No. 12 and trying to grab the same. It was further averred that respondent-landlord has no proof of ownership with regard to the property in question. The relationship of landlord and tenant was denied by the petitioner-tenant.