- (1.) This judgment shall dispose of two Civil Revisions i.e. Civil Revision No. 2826 of 2009 and Civil Revision No. 2824 of 2009 as similar questions of law on similar facts have been raised by the tenant petitioner, in these civil revisions against the same landlords. Respondents filed petition under Section 13 of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (in short 'the Act') against the petitioners for their eviction from the demised premises pleading that the respondent was owner of the factory premises bearing Plot No. 48, Sector 27-A, Faridabad. Out of the said factory premises, a shed measuring 8575 sq. feet shown in yellow colour was given on licence/lease to M/s. Parnav Vikas India Ltd. (i.e. petitioner in Civil Revision No. 2826 of 2009) on payment of licence fee/lease money of Rs. 9240/- per month for a period of 11 months vide lease deed dated 15.07.1996 and another portion measuring 4800 sq. feet shown in green colour was let out to M/s. Vikam Metal Kat Pvt. Ltd. (i.e. petitioner in Civil Revision No. 2824 of 2009) on payment of licence fee/lease money of Rs. 3680/- per month vide lease deed dated 15.07.1996. Respondent had earlier filed civil suits against the petitioners claiming them to be licensee in the aforesaid premises but the suits were dismissed and the petitioners were held to be tenants in possession of the demised premises. It was further pleaded that the petitioners in collusion with each other and without permission of the respondent had made alterations in the structure and dismantled a portion of structure and wall and further encroached upon the area of common lawn and later on raised illegal and unauthorised structure in the form of security office and room without prior permission and knowledge of the respondent over an area of 11' x 10' and 22' x 12.8' in front of premises over the common lawn along with the boundary wall. In this regard, a show cause notice dated 17.08.2002 was issued by the Municipal Corporation, Faridabad. Thus, the petitioners had committed such acts which have impaired the material value and utility of tenanted premises. It was further pleaded that on 01.03.2004 petitioners, in collusion with each other, illegally and without consent of the landlord removed the intervening lawn XY and YZ of the two sheds and after removal of the said wall, raised 10 brick pillars P1 to P10 along with partition of wooden ply and thus had made material alterations which has impaired the value and utility of the tenanted premises, as by this act of petitioners two separate and distinct tenanted premises were converted into one premises. It was further alleged that respondent was tenant of a portion under the landlord-ship and ownership of M/s. R. McDill and Company Pvt. Ltd. which was pressing hard to get the premises vacated. Thus, the respondents required the premises in dispute to continue its business and their own occupation to run their business. Respondents were also dumping waste material over the common lawn common passage and vacant premises of the respondent and neighbours and this act of petitioners was effecting the physical heath of neighbours. Petitioners were creating nuisance to the occupants of the buildings and adjoining areas. Thus, on these grounds, respondents sought ejectment of petitioners from the premises in dispute.
(2.) Petitioner in Civil revision No. 2826 of 2009 filed written statement raising various preliminary objections. On merits, it was admitted that the premises in dispute were let out to the petitioners prior to the year 1996 by the respondent and the petitioners were paying rent to the respondent, regularly. Petitioners denied that they had altered the structure and dismantled the portion of structure wall of the tenanted premises or had encroached upon any lawn area and had raised illegal and unauthorised structure in the form of security office and room without permission and knowledge of the respondents. It was further pleaded that petitioner had not committed any act, which is likely to impair the value and utility of the tenanted premises. It was further denied that the wall XY and YZ were removed by the petitioner in collusion with the petitioner in the other civil revision or any pillar along with partition of plywood were raised. It was further denied that petitioner had sub-let the premises to the petitioner in the other revision petition without consent of the respondent. It was further denied that the respondent required the premises for his personal bona fide necessity or that petitioners were creating nuisance over the suit property. Rest of the averments were denied and dismissal of the petition was prayed for.
(3.) From the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the present petition is filed by a duly authorised person? OPP 2. Whether respondent is liable to be ejected from the demised premises on the grounds as alleged? OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR 4. Whether petitioner has no cause of action to file the present petition? OPR 5. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPR 6. Relief.;