- (1.) RESPONDENTS No.1 and 2 sought ejectment of the petitioner and respondent No.3 by filing an application under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. Case of respondents No.1 and 2, in brief, was that the shop in question had been rented out to the petitioner at a monthly rent of Rs. 8,002/ -. The tenant was in arrears of rent and house tax since 15.6.1997 and had sublet the premises to respondent No.3. The ejectment of the petitioner was also sought by the landlord on the ground that the premises in question was required by them for their own use and occupation.
(2.) PETITIONER , in his written statement, denied the fact that respondents No.1 and 2 were owners of the rented premises. However, it was averred that there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The rate of rent was also admitted by the tenant. However, it was denied that the petitioner had sublet the premises in question to respondent No.3. It was also averred that the premises in question was not required by the landlord for their personal use and occupation.
(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Rent Controller: - "1. Whether the respondents are liable to be ejected from the tenanted premises as detailed in para No.1 of the application on the following ground: i) That respondent No.1 is in arrears of rent and house tax since 15.6.1997 ? OPP ii) That respondent No.1 has sublet the tenanted premises to the respondent No.2 without the consent of the applicants/ landlords ?OPP iii) That applicant No.1 requires the tenanted premises for his personal use and occupation ? OPP iv) Relief." Vide order dated 12.5.2006, the ejectment petition was allowed by the Rent Controller. The said order was upheld by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 10.3.2008.;