Ram Sarup vs Harish Chander

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is tenant''s petition against whom the order of eviction has been passed on the basis of the compromise by the Rent Controller and was affirmed in appeal.

On June 5, 1979, the landlord-respondent filed application u/s 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, for obtaining an order of eviction against the tenant in respect of the residential premises, carrying a rent of Rs. 50/- per month. The grounds on which his eviction was sought were non-payment of rent, damage to the tenanted premises, bona fide requirement of the landlord and that tenant''s conduct was a nuisance to the neighbours. The petition was contested vide written statement filed by the petitioner dated September 17, 1979. Replication was filed by the landlord on October 10, 1979. In the written statement, the tenant denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. On the first date of hearing, i.e., August 17, 1979, no rent was tendered by the tenant The Rent Controller framed the issues on the pleadings of the parties and fixed April 18, 1980, for the recording of the landlord''s evidence. However, on August 17, 1979, the tenant made a statement in the Court of the Rent Controller that he was not to tender any rent because there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties Thus, in view of the said statement, no tender was made by the tenant on that date On April 18, 1980, when the case was fixed for the evidence of the landlord, the tenant made a statement that he was vacating the premises, in question, by June 14, 1980. Rs. 200/ were taken by him that day and Rs. 300/- were to be received by him on June 14, 1980 at the time of vacating the plot He also stated that he would remove the molba and deliver possession of the vacant site to the landlord. On the basis of the said statement of the tenant, which was agreed to by the landlord, the Rent Controller passed the eviction order on April 18, 1980. In the appeal before the Appellate Authority, it was contended on behalf of the tenant that the order passed by the Rent Controller, on the basis of the statements of the parties, was a nullity as no specific findings was given by the Rent Controller on the ground on which the ejectment of the tenant was sought by the landlord. However, the learned Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal with the following observations:

The record shows that on the first date of hearing the appellant did not tender rent as required by law. The Appellant''s statement which he gave on 18.4.1980 unmistakably shows that he acknowledged the Appellant as his landlord and agreed to vacate the premises after receiving Rs. 500/-, out of which Rs. 200/- were in fact, taken by him on that very date. He had also agreed to remove the malba and only vacant possession of the site was to be delivered by 14-6-80. In such a situation, the observations of their lordships given in 1973. Rent Control Journal page 589 would be applicable and the said observations are mentioned in the first authority referred to above. It is worth pointing out that the Appellant in this case had accepted Rs. 200/- from the landlord so he cannot blow hot and cold at the same time row challenging the validity of the order of eviction by the Rent Controller. Thus, on facts. I do not find any material illegality or infirmity in the order of the Rent Controller, Consequently, the appal has no force and is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

Dissatisfied with the same, the tenant has filed this petition in this Court.

The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner mainly relying upon Ferozi Lal Jain Vs. Man Mal and Another, and Kaushalya Devi and Others Vs. Shri K.L. Bansal, contended that the order passed by the Rent Controller in terms of the compromise without satisfying himself of the grounds of eviction existed in the present case or not, was a nullity. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the landlord-respondent relied upon Nagindas Ramdas Vs. Dalpatram Ichharam alias Brijram and Others, and K.K. Chari Vs. R.M. Seshadri, .

After hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties and going through the case law cited at the bar, I do not find any merit in this petition.

Admittedly, on the first date of hearing, the tenant made the statement that he was not to tender any rent because, according to him, there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Later on, on April 18, 1980, the tenant agreed to vacate the premises on receipt of Rs. 500/- out of which Rs. 200/- were paid to him on that very day. Thus, it is apparent that the tenant did not tender the arrears of rent on the first date of hearing and in this situation, once the relationship of landlord and tenant is proved or admitted, the tenant was liable to be ejected from the premises. The Authorities relied upon by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner have no applicability to the facts of the present case. The decisions in Ferozi Lal''s case and Kaushalya Devi''s cast, (supra), were considered by the Supreme Court in Nagindas''s case (supra) wherein paragraph 22 of the judgment it was observed that in those cases there was absolutely no material, extrinsic or intrinsic to the consent decree on the basis of which, the Court could be satisfied as to the existence of a statutory ground for eviction. Further, in paragraph 23 of the said judgment, reference was made to K.K. Chari''s case (supra), the ratio of which case was follwed in that case. As observed earlier, in the present case non-payment of the arrears of rent is one of the grounds of ejectment of the tenant. Since no arrears of rent were tendered on the first date of hearing, the tenant was liable to be ejected from the premises. It is unfortunate that in spite of the fact that the tenant-received a sum of Rs. 200/- out of Rs. 500/- from the landlord on April 18, 1980, for vacating the premises, he is still continuing in occupation thereof since then without payment of any rent.

Consequently, this revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs. The costs assessed at Rs. 500/-