R.L.ANAND, J. - (1.) THIS is a landlords' revision and has been directed against the judgment dated 22.10.1982, passed by the Appellate Authority, Ambala, who, reversed the order of ejectment dated 25.11.1981 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Ambala Cantt, who had ordered the eviction of Shri Om Parkash holding that he is a sub-tenant of Shri L.C. Narula and moreover, the demised premises are required for personal necessity of the petitioners-landlords.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that petitioners S/Shri Gainda Ram, Ved Parkash, Vijay Kumar, Dr. Dalip Chand and Shri K.K. Gupta, who were trustees of Hargolal Trust Society, Ambala Cantt, though Shri Ved Parkash, General Attorney, filed the ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 against Shri L.C. Narula and Shri Om Parkash, seeking their ejectment from the demised premises bearing No. 5309/35 situated in, Punjabi Mohalla, Ambala Cantt. It was alleged by the petitioners that Shri L.C. Narula, respondent No. 1 was a tenant under them in the premises bearing No. 5309/35 situated in Punjabi Mohalla, Ambala Cantt on payment of Rs. 7/- as rent besides water tax at the rate of rupee one per month. The tenancy of respondent No. 1 was terminated by serving him a legal notice dated 7.2.1977 which was received by him on 9.2.1977. Respondents No. 1 and 2 are liable to be ejected from the demised premises on the grounds; that respondent No. 1 has neither paid nor tendered the arrears of rent with effect from 1.1.1977 to 31.3.1977 amounting to Rs. 56/- beside water tax of Rs. 8/-; that the respondent No. 1 has sublet the demised premises in favour of respondent No. 2 without the written consent of the petitioners after the commencement of the Act of and that the tenanted premises are required by the petitioners trustees for its institution namely Hargolal Girls High School Punjabi Mohalla Ambala Cantt as the present accommodation in the school is insufficient to meet its present requirements. Notice of the petition was given to the respondents. Respondent No. 2 appeared in the trial Court but respondent No. 1 Shri L.C. Narula did not appear and as a result of that he was proceeded ex parte on 10.10.1978. The ejectment petition was contested by respondent No. 2 mainly on the ground that Hargolal Trust Society is not a registered body under the Registration Act and as such the present petition is not maintainable. It was also pleaded by respondent No. 2 that the petitioners are not the trustees. Respondent No. 2 took the stand on merits that respondent No. 1 was never inducted as a tenant by the petitioners. In fact, M/s Shiv Parshad Om Parkash of which the respondent No. 2 is a proprietor, was a tenant in the premises in question. The nature of the tenanted premises is godown. Respondent No. 2 is using the demised premises as godown for the last 30 years and, therefore, no question of sub-tenancy arises. It was also alleged by respondent No. 2 that respondent No. 1 is the real brother of the Headmistress of Hargolal Girls High School. The tenancy has been fictitiously shown in favour of respondent No. 1 just to create false ground of ejectment of respondent No. 2. Petitioners and respondent No. 1 are colluding with each other. Shri Ved Parkash who filed the present ejectment petition has not been authorised by the trustees to file the ejectment application. It was also pleaded by the respondent No. 2 that the demised premises are non-residential, therefore, the ground of personal necessity is not available.
(3.) THE petitioners filed a rejoinder to the written statement of respondent No. 2 in which they denied the allegations by reiterating those made in the petition. Resultantly, the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the respondents are liable to ejectment on the ground of non- payment of rent by respondent No. 1 ? OPR 2. Whether the respondents are liable to ejectment on the grounds of subletting the tenancy premises ? OPR 3. What is the nature of tenancy premises ? OPR 4. Whether the petitioners require the tenancy premises for their personal use and occupation ? OPA 5. Whether the petition is not maintainable on account of preliminary objection in the written reply ? OPR 6. Relief. ;