SHAM SUNDER, J. - (1.) THE instant revision petition was originally filed by Narotam Singh and others, against the judgment dated 27.10.1983, rendered by the Appellate Authority, Gurgaon, vide which it accepted the appeal, by setting aside the order of ejectment dated 11.10.1982, passed by the Rent Controller, Gurgaon. During the pendency of the revision petition, they sold the demised premises, in favour of the applicants, namely Bijender Kumar son of late Sh. Jagan Nath, Harvinder Singh son of late Bhoj Raj and Suresh Kumar son of Matu Ram. They were accordingly substituted, in place of the original revision petitioners vide separate order passed today, in the civil miscellaneous petition.
(2.) DR . Kulbhushan Kapoor was inducted as a tenant in the demised premises, on 19.6.1974, as fully described in the ejectment petition, at a monthly rental of Rs. 300/- (Rs. 260/- as rent + Rs. 40/- as tax etc.) by Narotam Singh and others original landlords. The ejectment of the tenant, was sought, on the grounds that he had been in arrears of rent since 19.6.1974; that he had changed the user of the demised premises, from residential, to non residential; that he committed such acts, as materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises; that the landlords required the demised premises for personal bona fide necessity; and that the tenant was guilty of such acts and conduct, as amounted to nuisance, to the occupiers of the buildings, in the neighbourhood. On the refusal of the tenant-respondent, to vacate the demised premises, an ejectment application was filed. The respondent-tenant in, the written statement, took up various objections, and contested the petition. It was pleaded that no notice under Section 106 of the Transfer and Property Act, was served, upon him, before filing the petition and, as such, the same was not maintainable. It was denied that the demised premises were residential. It was stated that previously Land Mortgage Cooperative Bank, was being run, on the ground floor of the demised premises, whereas the first floor was being used for the residence of the Manager. It was further stated that the respondent being a medical practitioner, and had opened a clinic, on the ground floor, whereas, he was residing in Rajauri Garden, New Delhi. It was further stated that the tenant applied for a commercial electricity meter, after obtaining 'No Objection Certificate' from Dwarkadheesh, one of the original landlords. It was further stated that Gajraj Singh was running his office as an Architect, on the first floor. It was further stated that the demised premises were let out to the respondent for non-residential purpose i.e. for running his clinic, as he is a doctor. It was further stated that the demised premises were taken on rent, from Bhola Singh, father of the original landlords, and the rent was paid to him till 19.11.1977. After that date, said Bhola Singh refused to receive the rent, tendered or remitted by postal money order, by the respondent, as he insisted to enhance the same. The respondent, ultimately, moved an application under Section 6-A of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, and paid/deposited the rent up to 19.6.1978. It was denied, that the respondent committed such acts, as materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises. It was further stated that only wooden planks had been fixed, in the verandah. It was denied that any pucca wall had been constructed to convert the verandah into a room. It was further stated that the water tank was installed with the consent of Bhola Singh, father of one of the original landlords. It was further stated that the verandah was not converted into a room, by the respondent, nor any window and door therein had been opened by him. On the other hand, it was stated that this portion,was in the same condition, in which it was at the time inception of tenancy. It was denied that any hole was made, in the wall, by the respondent. It was further admitted that pucca floor was laid by the respondent. Water tank and the pipes for draining out the water, through bathroom, kitchen etc. were also laid by the respondent, with the consent of the original landlords through their father Bhola Singh, for the convenient use of the demised premises. The remaining averments, were specifically denied being wrong.
(3.) IN the replication, filed by the petitioners, they reasserted all the averments, contained in the ejectment petition, and controverted those, contained in the written statement. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issue was struck :- "1. Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected on the grounds mentioned in para No. 2(a) to 2(e) of the petition ? 2. Relief." ;