Mr. Augustine George Masih, J.: (Oral) - C.M No.15330 of 2015

The present application is for pre-ponement of hearing of the case and since the main case is listed for hearing today the same has been rendered infructuous.

Disposed of as such.

CR No.4414 of 2015

2. Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 18.05.2015 passed by the Rent Controller, Karnal vide which the eviction petition for ejectment under Section 13 (A) (1-A) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as 1973 Act) has been allowed in the light of the fact that the leave to defend was not granted by the Rent Controller which order has attained finality up to this Court.

3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petition for ejectment was not maintainable as one petition is not maintainable against two separate tenants having separate tenancy and for separate purposes. He contends that even if leave to defend has been declined but still the landlord has to stand on his own legs with regard to the petition being maintainable. If the petition itself is not maintainable, ejectment order could not have been passed by the Rent Controller. He accordingly states that the impugned order cannot sustain, specially in the light of the fact that the tenancy is different, in support of which he has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Surinder Singh and another Vs. Rup Kaur and others, 1986 Volume (I) RCR 483 as also Manohar Singh Sarhadi Vs. Ramji Dass and another, 1989, Vol (2) PLR 444. He thus contends that the present petition may be allowed and the impugned order be set aside.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has referred to the provisions of the 1975 Act to contend that one petition is maintainable even against different tenants if the premises is one and the cause is common. That apart, he asserts that once a leave to defend has been declined, eviction of the tenant has to be ordered as an automatic consequence. In support of this, he has placed reliance upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Anwar Ali Vs. Gian Kaur, [2011(4) Law Herald (P&H) (FB) 3427 : 2012(3) Land L.R. 309 (P&H) (FB)] : 2012, Volume (I) HLR 142. Reference has also been made to the eviction petition which has been filed to contend that the premises in question is one integral building although there are two tenants in the premises. He accordingly prays that the present revision petition be dismissed.

5. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned order.

6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petition for ejectment is not maintainable against two different tenants, who have been given different premises on rent for different purposes, is not acceptable in the light of the judgment passed by this Court in Anita Sood and others Vs. Manjit Singh 2011 (I) HLR 498 where it has specifically been held that single eviction petition against two tenants of same building occupying adjacent premises would be maintainable against both the tenants. This has also been held in Raman Mittal Vs. Mangal Singh 2011 Volume (2) HLR 270, where in a similar case the plea so raised that landlord’s application was contested by the tenant contending that single petition against the tenants was not maintainable, was rejected.

7. A perusal of the eviction petition which has been filed, copy of which has been placed on record, would clearly indicate that it has been specifically mentioned that these two shops are integral part of one building and, therefore, the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that the petition against two tenants would not be maintainable, cannot be accepted as Section 13 (3) of the Act talks about ‘a building.’ The contention, thus, of the counsel for the petitioner, stands rejected.

8. As regards the reliance of the counsel for the petitioners on the judgments of this Court in Surender Singh