ASHOK BHAN, J. - (1.) THIS is a tenant's revision petition. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows:
(2.) BELI Ram, landlord now represented by his son Hakam Chand. (hereinafter referred to as 'the landlord') filed an application for ejectment of Ram Partap and Tek Chand from House No. 508 under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act' ). Allegations of the landlord are that he is the owner of the premises in dispute and Ram Partap occupied the same as a tenant under him on a yearly rent of Rs. 1,000/- from the year 1962. Grounds for eviction taken were non payment of arrears of rent from March 31, 1981 up to the date of filing of the application along with interest and house tax, material impairment in the value and utility, personal necessity, material alterations and sub-letting. It was averred that the demised premises had been let out to Ram Pratap who had sub-let the same to his brother Tek Chand without the written consent of the landlord.
(3.) RAM Partap and Tek Chand filed a joint written statement. It was averred that Ram Partap was not a tenant under the landlord and did not pay the rent to him; rather Tek Chand, is the tenant under the landlord since the year 1968 and has been paying the rent at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per year. Tek Chand had paid rent up to March 31,1983 and, therefore, he was not liable to be evicted on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent. However, he paid Rs. 4,385/- as rent, interest, Cost of application and municipal tax under protest. It was pleaded that the shop in dispute was taken on rent by Ram Partap for firm Jai Ram Dass Jethu Ram in the year 1952, being the Karta of the Hindu joint family as this firm was joint Hindu family firm of Ran Partap, Prabh Dial, Jethu Ram and Tek Chand. In the year 1968, the joint Hindu family was divided and the landlord gave the shop in dispute to Tek Chand on rent in the year 1968. Thereafter, firm Jai Ram Dass Madan Lal is carrying on the business in the premises in dispute. The landlord had been receiving the rent from this firm himself and through his son Hakam Dass after executing the receipts thereof. Other grounds for ejectment regarding impairment of value and utility, personal necessity, material alterations, were controvertered and denied; On the pleadings of the parties, the. following issues were framed: "1. Whether the respondents are liable to be ejected from the suit property on the grounds mentioned in the application? OP A 2. Whether respondent No. 2 is a tenant under the applicant and there is no sub-letting? OPR. 3. Whether the suit property is not a house and is a shop and therefore, the respondents cannot be ejected? OPR. 4. Whether the respondents are entitled to special costs under Section 35-A of C. P. C. ? OPR. 5. Relief. " ;