The definition of 'landlord' under the 1973 Act is broad and includes various persons beyond just the owner, and tenants can be estopped from denying the landlord's title.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J. - By this order, Civil Revision No.3654 of 2008, 8480 of 2010, 3598 of 2012, 1238, 1241, 1252 and 1255 of 2019 shall stand disposed of. Counsel for the parties are ad-idem that these revision petitions can conveniently be disposed of by a common order. Civil Revision No.8480 of 2010 has been filed by the landlord, whereas remaining petitions have been filed by the tenants. In all the revision petitions filed by the tenants, both the courts below have ordered their eviction on the ground that the building has become dilapidated and is unfit and unsafe for human habitation.

2. In Civil Revision No.8480 of 2010, the alleged landlords have prayed for the fixation of fair rent under Section 4 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1973 Act'). In the aforesaid petition, the learned Rent Controller fixed the fair rent, whereas the learned Appellate Authority after fixing the fair rent, accepted that appeal while observing that the petition filed before the Rent Controller was not maintainable as there was no landlord-tenant relationship.

3. This court has heard learned counsels for the parties at length and with their able assistance gone through the paper books as well as the record requisitioned.

4. Learned counsels for the tenants have vehemently submitted that the eviction petitions, filed by 2 petitioners i.e. Surender Kumar in person as well as Shri Krishan Bhagwan Bhawan (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bhawan') through its Manager/Mohatmim Surender Kumar, are not maintainable. They submitted that the property in question is owned by a registered trust, namely, Shri Krishan Bhagwan Bhakti Ashram Trust (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trust') and therefore, the eviction petitions filed before the Rent Controller were not maintainable. It has further been contended that no doubt, the tenants took the premises on rent from late Smt. Maya Devi, who was Mohatmim/Manager of the Bhawan, however, she has no right to execute the Will in favour of Surender Kumar. It was further contended that a previous petition i.e. Rent Petition No.8 of 03.04.2004 filed by the Bhawan and Surender Kumar against Sarda Devi was dismissed on 26.11.2005 under Order 17 Rule 3 CPC. They submitted that in the aforesaid petition, the relationship between the Bhawan as landlord and the tenant-Sharda Devi was denied and disputed and therefore, once the aforesaid eviction petition has been dismissed on this ground under Order 17 Rule 3 CPC, therefore, subsequent petitions are hit by the doctrine of resjudicata. They further submitted that the findings of the courts below to the effect that the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation are erroneous.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the landlords have contended that the subsequent petitions would not be barred as the previous petition was not decided on merits because in that eviction petition the landlord had failed to lead evidence. They further contended that in fact, the Trust along with its trustees did file a suit for declaration by impleading Surender Kumar and various other tenants as defendants. Plaintiff no.1 and 2 withdrew the suit on 08.01.2008, whereas qua plaintiff no.3, the suit was dismissed in default on 16.01.2008. Hence, they submitted that after the dismissal of the aforesaid suit, the tenants cannot dispute the relationship particularly when the trustee(s) have admitted the status of the Bhawan as the landlord of the rented premises. They further submitted that the eviction proceedings under the 1973 Act, are summary in nature and CPC, as such, is not applicable.

6. Now let's analyze the arguments of learned counsel for the parties.

7. It may be noted here that urban tenancies in the State of Haryana are governed by the 1973 Act. Section 2(c) defines the word 'landlord' which reads as under:-

"landlord" means any person for the time being entitled to receive rent in respect of any building or rented