- (1.) THE petitioners have been ordered to be evicted from the demised premises in proceedings initiated by the respondent under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act. The respondent landlord pleaded that he is owner of the property bearing house tax unit no. 2291/1 situated at Hissaria Gate, Sirsa. He pleaded that the property had been rented out to the father of the petitioners by his father about 40 years ago on a monthly rent of Rs. 5/ - which rent was increased from time to time. The demised premises came to the share of the landlord in a family settlement confirmed through civil decree dated 24.9.1975. Rent was paid by the petitioners to the respondent till 31.3.1988 whereafter they defaulted. Some portion of the building is being used by petitioner no.1 (son of original tenant) who is running his business of selling Pans and Cigarettes under the name and style of M/s Jot Ram & Sons. In this way, sub -letting was alleged. Eviction was thus sought on the ground of i) non -payment of rent; ii) sub -letting; iii) the building being more than 60 years old and therefore, unfit and unsafe for human habitation; iv) personal necessity for setting up an office -cum -residence as petitioner is a Chartered Accountant and vi) for impairment of the value and utility of the entire building.
(2.) THE petitioners contested the petition and disputed the title as well as identity of the property and the parties went to the trial on the following issues: - 1) Whether the applicant is owner of the shop in dispute as alleged? OPP 2) Whether there exists any relationship of landlord and tenant between the applicant and respondent? OPP 3) If issue no.2 is proved, whether the respondents are liable to be evicted from the shop in dispute on the grounds mentioned in the petition? OPP 4) Whether the court of Rent Controller has got no jurisdiction to try the petition? OPR 5) Relief. The following additional issues were hereby framed on 21.5.1992: - 4A) Whether the shops and Nohra in dispute are situated in Khasra no. 99 and owned by the State of Haryana? If so to what effect? OPR. Both the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority held that there was no dispute regarding the identity of the property which clearly belonged to the respondent and upheld the personal necessity of the respondent landlord. The issue of arrears of rent was also decided in favour of the respondent.
(3.) BEFORE this Court, two issues have been primarily urged; i.e regarding identity of the property and relationship of tenant and landlord and the personal necessity of the respondent landlord not being bona fide. Learned counsel for the petitioners has with some vehemence contended that demised premises are situated in khasra no. 99 which belongs to the Government and the respondent is not the owner since the decree in his favour is not related to the demised premises. The petitioners assert that the land where the demised premises is situated belonged to the Government and possession having been given to them for setting up an eatery. He further states that the personal necessity as pleaded by the respondent has not been made out. Learned counsel for the respondent has stated that it was the petitioners who asserted and disputed the identity of the property but they failed to establish the same by way of any cogent evidence whereas there was ample material in the shape of municipal records to indicate that the premises belonged to the respondent coupled with the admission made by one of the petitioners himself in his statement. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records.;