S.S.SARON, J. - (1.) THIS order will dispose of the above said two Civil Revision Petitions No. 1358 and 1359 of 1981 which relate to somewhat similar facts and circumstances. The tenants-petitioners in both the cases are common. The landlords-respondents are also almost common inasmuch as one petition for eviction had been filed by the landlord Shiv Shankar Lal in his own capacity and the other by the Raghunath Dass Trust, Charkhi Dadri through Shiv Shankar Lal aforesaid and his wife Smt. Kamla Rani as trustees of the said trust. Both the petitions for eviction are filed against the same tenants Mohri Ram (petitioner No. 1) son of Balak Ram and his sons Ramji Dass (petitioner No. 2) and Ram Dayal (petitioner No. 3). Mohri Ram died during the pendency of the petition on 3.9.1985 and Ramji Dass, Ram Dayal, Subhash Chand, Munish Kumar, Chander Bhan sons of Mohri Ram, Bimla daughter of Mohri Ram and Bhirawan Bai widow of Mohri Ram were impleaded as his LRs and are on record. Therefore, both the petitions can be disposed of by a common order.
(2.) THE tenants-petitioners assail the order dated 10.3.1981 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 ('Act' - for short) whereby the appeal of the landlordsrespondents against the order dated 27.8.1979 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Charkhi Dadri has been accepted and the eviction of the tenants-petitioners has been ordered. In the petition filed by landlord Shiv Shankar Lal in his own capacity, he sought eviction of Mohri Ram son of Balak Ram, Ramji Das and Ram Dayal sons of Mohri Ram. In the connected petition the Raghunath Dass Trust, Charkhi Dadri through Shiv Shankar Lal and his wife Kamla Rani as trustees of the said Trust filed a petition also seeking ejectment of Mohri Ram and his sons Ramji Dass and Ram Dayal. In the case filed by Shiv Shankar Lal in his own capacity the ejectment is sought under Section 13 of the Act from one shop bearing No. 24 (single storey) as detailed in the petition and in the alternative prayer has been made for fixing fair rent of the said shop. The shop No. 24, it is alleged, was taken on rent at a monthly rent of Rs. 70/- on 1.8.1961 by Mohri Ram for his personal use for 11 months. Mohri Ram executed a rent note dated 17.8.1961 in favour of the landlord Shiv Shankar Lal. The grounds of eviction taken by the landlord for the eviction of his tenant Mohri Ram are that he had sublet the demised premises to his sons Ramji Dass and Ram Dayal who are running their business in a partnership in the shop in question. Mohri Ram, it was alleged, had got no concern with the firm nor did he have any control thereon. The other ground on which the eviction was sought in respect of the said shop No. 24 is that the tenants had prepared 'Dachhatti and tand' which had weakened the wall. Besides, they had fixed two almirahs on the Chabutra in front of the shop. These additions, it is alleged, had materially impaired the value and utility of the shop. The respondents to the petition for ejectment filed their reply in which a preliminary objection was raised that the landlord was seeking relief of eviction on the one hand and at the same time was demanding fair rent. Besides, the application had not been properly valued for the purpose of Court-fee. It was also stated that the tenancy of the respondents in the petition for ejectment was contractual and on that account was required to be terminated under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Moreover, the shop was taken on rent by the firm Ram Parkash Ramji Dass through Mohri Ram who is the 'Karta' of the said firm Ram Parkash Ramji Dass. It is alleged that since the said firm had not been joined as a respondent to the petition seeking ejectment, the petition seeking the ejectment was bad. On facts, it was stated that the firm had been running its business earlier to the execution of the rent note dated 17.8.1961. Ram Parkash had died about ten years earlier to the filing of the petition seeking ejectment and the firm Ram Parkash Ramji Dass was running its business in the shop as earlier. The further case of the respondents to the ejectment petition is that earlier the shop was with the firm Ram Parkash Ramji Dass at an annual rent of Rs. 800/- but later that rent was increased to Rs. 70/- per month and the firm carried on its business as earlier. The rent note was executed by Mohri Ram on 17.8.1961 on behalf of the firm. All the respondents to the ejectment petition are stated to be tenants in the shop in dispute along with the firm. As regards the alternations made, it is stated that the 'Dachhatti and tand' had not been fixed by making holes in the walls but by fixing wooden planks outside the wall. The almirahs outside the Chabutra, it is stated, are not fixed but are portable. As regards the fair rent it is pleaded that the petitioner to the petition seeking ejectment i.e. Shiv Shankar Lal should have filed a separate application.
(3.) IN the case filed by the Raghunath Dass Trust through Shiv Shankar Lal and his wife Smt. Kamla Rani as trustees of the said Trust against the respondents to ejectment petition, eviction of Mohri Ram and his sons Ramji Das and Ram Dayal has been sought from one godown No. 59 single storey situated within the municipal limits of Charkhi Dadri as detailed in the head note of the petition and in the alternative for fixation of fair rent. The case set up by the landlord-Raghunath Dass Trust is that Mohri Ram took the godown in question on rent from the landlord on 3.7.1965 on a monthly rent of Rs. 15/- for his personal use for a period of 11 months. A rent note was executed on 5.7.1965. After expiry of the period of 11 months, he (Mohri Ram) continued to be in possession as a statutory tenant. Therefore after expiry of the period of 11 months covered by the rent note Mohri Ram was a statutory tenant and no notice in terms of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was required to be given. The eviction of the respondents in the ejectment petition was sought only on the ground that Mohri Ram had sublet the said godown to his sons Ramji Dass and Ram Dayal (respondents No. 2 and 3 in the ejectment petition) and he parted with possession and control of the godown. The respondents in the ejectment petition contested the petition of the landlord and took an objection that the relief of eviction and fixation of fair rent cannot be given in the same petition. Besides, the petition had not been properly valued for the purpose of Court-fee. It is also stated that the godown in question was taken on rent by the firm Ram Parkash Ramji Dass through Mohri Ram and since the firm has not been joined as a party to the petition seeking ejectment, so the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits it is stated that the godown was taken on rent by the firm Ram Parkash Ramji Dass through Mohri Ram and the firm was still in its possession. Ram Parkash is stated to have died ten years earlier to the filing of the petition. It is also pleaded that the signatures and thumb impression of Mohri Ram were obtained on blank printed form of rent note and it was not filled at that time.;