KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. - (1.) THIS petition was taken up for hearing on 27.11.2008 when learned counsel for the petitioners sought time to place on record eviction petition, written statement and the replication. This was necessary to be placed on record as argument has been raised that in case a tenant who is in occupation of the shops tenanted out to him unauthorizedly take possession of the land belonging to landlord and raise construction thereupon and carve out a door in the partitioned wall of premises rented out to him for having access to the shops, cannot be evicted from the land belonging to the landlord where he has raised unauthorized construction. It is not disputed that from tenanted premises i.e. two shops, petitioners can be evicted but it is stated that portion in the back of the shops, where the tenant has raised construction, he cannot be evicted.
(2.) AT this stage, Mr. Goel states that the area over which the construction has been unauthorizedly raised is vacant space and even though access has been made through the shops by opening a door, the construction over the vacant space, belonging to landlord, will not form part of the tenancy. To examine this argument, it will be necessary to notice the facts of the case. Trust Sainiyan Mohalla Sainipura, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as "the Trust") through Baljit Singh and Puran Singh instituted an eviction petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). It was stated therein that the Trust is registered and is owner of the demised premises and Baljit Singh and Puran Singh have been authorized by the Trust to file the eviction petition. It was further averred therein that two shops were rented out at a monthly rent of Rs. 75/- per month. The shops have been shown in the site plan by marking letters ABCD and EFGH. Eight grounds of eviction were pleaded. Since the controversy revolve around ground (i), it is necessary to reproduce the same :- "(i) That the respondent No. 1 has demolished the back wall marked BC and annexed portion shown by letters BIJC in the shop shown by the letters ABCD and constructed a shop over the portion BIJC and open a door in the said portion towards gher of the Trust and materially impaired value of the shop".
(3.) BESIDES the above said ground, ground of nuisance, subletting the property, construction of a new shop behind the shops ABCD by removing the back wall mark BC and subletting were also pleaded. It was further stated that by making encroachment over the property of the Trust and giving same on the rent huge rent is being received by the tenant and, therefore, he has caused hindrance in use of the Trust property. It was further pleaded that tenant is in arrears of rent since May 1994. Another ground taken was that he has ceased to occupy the premises and has sublet the shops without the written consent of the landlord.;