Arjan Dass and another vs Master Shiv Dutt

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is landlord''s petition in whose favour eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller but was set aside the appeal.

The landlords sought the ejectment of the tenant from the house in dispute on the ground that they required the same for their own use and occupation. It was pleaded that they did not occupy any other residential building in the urban area of Faridabad and have not vacated such building without sufficient cause. These allegation were controverted by the tenant. The learned Rent Controller found that the landlords required the premises for their own bona fide use and occupation. Consequently, eviction order was passed. In appeal, the learned appellate authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller and consequently dismissed the ejectment application. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlords have filed is petition in this Court.

On the last date of hearing i.e. 12th August, 1985 an affidavit was filed by Arjan Dass landlord that during the pendency of this petition the tenant has purchased plot No. 2170 measuring 169 Sq. Yds. Sector 16, Faridabad from one Ram Swarup Jain and the same was duly transferred in his name by the Estate Officer vide his letter dated 16th October, 1984. Lateron the tenant constructed the house thereon and informed the Estate Officer vide his application dated 3rd August, 1985 that he has completed the construction of his plot on 1st August, 1985 duly certified by the Architects and therefore requested the Administration to issue completion certificate In view of this affidavit time was allowed to the tenant to file his affidavit, if any.

Today no counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the tenant rather it was admitted at the Bar that the tenant has constructed the said house Under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, if-the tenant has already in his possession a residential building or subsequently acquires possession of, or erects such a building reasonably sufficient for his requirements in the urban area concerned, the landlord is entitled to seek ejectment of this tenant. In view of this provision, the revision petition is liable to be accepted on this ground alone.

Consequently, this petition succeeds, the order of the appellate authority is set aside and that of the Rent Controller directing the ejectment of the tenant is restored with no order as to costs. However, the tenant is allowed 3 months'' time to vacate the premises provided all the arrears of rent, if any, and advance rent for 3 months with a further undertaking, in writing, that after the expiry of the said period, vacant possession will be handed over to the landlord.