JUDGEMENT
Rakesh Garg, J. -
(1.)THIS is tenant's revision petition challenging the order of the Rent Controller dated 02.03.2013, whereby his eviction from the demised premises has been ordered on the ground of personal necessity of the respondents -landlords and the judgment dated 10.05.2013 of the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the aforesaid order of the Rent Controller. Briefly stated, the respondents are owners of the property bearing No. 1929 measuring 10' -9" x 51' having purchased the same on 24.03.1999 and 15.04.1999, and a part of the said building has a platform. It is further case of the respondents that a part of the said platform measuring 2' -6" x 9' was given by the respondents to the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/ - for running a tea -stall. The said platform is having one shed at the top and the petitioner had kept his articles of tea -stall in the open space having no permanent structure over the said platform, rather the respondents are having one window in their shop opening towards the platform. The eviction of the petitioner has been sought on the ground that he has failed to pay the arrears of rent with effect from 01.01.2007 at the rate of Rs. 1000/ - per month; and that the respondents need the said premises for their personal use for business purposes as the respondents are running a Bartan Store and therefore, they need one show case to be installed over the demised premises for displaying the new products for attraction of the general public who may come and visit their shop for purchasing their requirements/utensils in kitchen, and thus, need of the respondents was bonafide and genuine for their own use and occupation.
(2.)THE petitioner contested the eviction petition raising various preliminary objections, including that the property in question was not owned by the respondents. On merits, it was denied that the demised premises were let out on a monthly rent of Rs. 1000/ - and asserted that the petitioner was in possession of the property in question before its coming into the ownership and possession of the respondents, as he was running a tea -stall at the place for the last 17 -18 years. It was further averred by the petitioner that the respondents used to receive a rent of Rs. 400/ - per month from him upto 31.12.2008, however, there is no writing or receipt in this regard. It has also been stated that the demised premises is a part of the platform and is not a part of the property purchased by the respondents, and thus, the question of personal use does not arise. More so, the respondents were having sufficient property for their use and business, and thus, they were not in need of the demised premises. Dismissal of the eviction petition was prayed. On the basis of the averments made, the Rent Controller framed following issues:
1. Whether respondent is in possession of the platform as tenant under the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,000/ - per month? OPA
2. Whether respondent is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.1.2007? OPA
2 -A. Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected from the suit property on ground of bonafide personal necessity of petitioner? OPA
3. Whether petitioners have got no cause of action or locus standi to file the present suit? OPR
(3.)WHETHER present petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.