DEVENDER SINGH AND ORS. Vs. SUNIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tenants through this revision have laid challenge to judgment of the Appellate Authority dtd. 30/4/2019 affirming the order of learned Rent Controller dtd. 28/2/2017, whereby they were ordered to be evicted from the demised shop on a petition filed by respondent-landlord under Sec. 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (in short the 'Act').

(2.) Undisputed fact are that demised shop was rented out to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners-tenant namely Rewati Nandan in the year 1953-54 at a monthly rent of Rs.20.00, which increased and finally on 1/1/1993, it was settled at Rs.150.00. After the death of original tenant, petitioners being his legal heirs/sons stepped into his shoes and thus became tenants over the demised shop. Petitioners in the year 1998 filed a petition under Sec. 12 of the Act against the respondent-landlord to repair/replace the roof of the demised shop pleading that due to storage of some malba by the respondent-landlord over its roof, some portion of the Civil Revision No.4364 of 2019 same had collapsed and remaining may collapse at any time. In the said petition a local commissioner was appointed, who vide his report Ex.PW3/D reported that demised shop consists of two portions, out of which Southern portion marked by letters 'A B E F' in the site plan was very old construction. Roof of the same had fallen at some places. Consequently, lot of debris was lying on the ground floor of this portion. Northern portion marked by letters 'B C D E' was intact. However, lot of 'malba' was lying on the roof of this portion. From the above report of the local commissioner, it was evident that some portion of the demised shop towards Southern side had fallen. According to the petitioners, on account of some compromise between them and respondent-landlord, the said petition was got dismissed as withdrawn in the year 1998 itself. After 16 years thereafter, landlord filed an eviction petition under sec. 13 of the Act against the petitioners, which after holding a full-fledged trial was accepted by the Rent Controller vide order dtd. 28/2/2017, thereby directing the petitioners to vacate the demised shop within two months and hand over actual vacant physical possession of the same to the respondent-landlord.

(3.) Being aggrieved, petitioners approached the Appellate Authority, but remained unsuccessful as their appeal too was dismissed vide judgment dtd. 30/4/2019.