RAM SARUP Vs. HARISH CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's petition against whom the order of eviction has been passed on the basis of the compromise by the Rent Controller and was affirmed in appeal.

(2.) ON June 5, 1979, the landlord-respondent filed application under section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, for obtaining an order of eviction against the tenant in respect of the residential premises, carrying a rent of Rs. 50/- per month. The grounds on which his eviction was sought were non-payment of rent, damage to the tenanted premises, bonafide requirement of the landlord and that tenant's conduct was a nuisance to the neighbours. The petition was contested vide written statement filed by the petitioners dated September 17, 1979, Replication was filed by the landlord on October 10, 1979. In the written statement, the tenant denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. On the first date of hearing, i.e. August 17, 1979, no rent was tendered by the tenant. The Rent Controller framed the issue on pleadings of the parties and fixed April 18, 1980, for the recording of the landlord's evidence. However, on August 17, 1979, the tenant made a statement in the Court of the Rent Controller that he was not to tender any rent because there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Thus, in view of the said statement, no tender was made by the tenant on that date. On April 18, 1980, when the case fixed for the evidence of the landlord, the tenant made a statement that he was vacating the premises, in question, by June 14, 1980 Rs. 200/- were taken by him that day and Rs. 300/- were to be received by him on June 14, 1980 at the time of vacating the plot. He also stated that he would remove the malba and deliver possession of the vacant site to the landlord. On the basis of the said statement of the tenant, which was agreed to by the landlord, the Rent Controller passed the eviction order on April 18, 1980. In the appeal before the Appellate Authority, it was contended on behalf of the tenant that the order passed by the Rent Controller, on the basis of the statements of the parties, was a nullity as no specific finding was given by the Rent Controller on the ground on which the ejectment of the tenant was sought by the landlord. However, the learned Appellate authority dismissed the appeal with the following observations -

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the case law cited at the bar, I do not find any merit in this petition.