CR No.6108 of 2012(O&M)

#1#

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH.

Civil Revision No.6108 of 2012(O&M)

Date of Decision:-06.11.2012

Mohd. Kamil.

......Petitioner.

Versus

Amar Singh & Anr.

......Respondents.

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

Present:-

Mr. S.S. Dinarpur, Advocate for Petitioner(tenant).

Mr. Adarsh Malik, Advocate for respondents.

***

JASWANT SINGH, J.

Petitioner(tenant) is in revision under Section 15(6) of the

Haryana Urban(Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred

to as the Act) against the concurrent findings returned by both the courts

below, whereby ejectment application filed by the respondents(landlords)

under Section 13 of the Act has been allowed by the learned Rent

Controller, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari vide its order dated 13.11.2010 and

the findings thereof have been affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority,

Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari vide its judgment dated 25.08.2012.

In brief, facts of the case are that the respondents(landlords)

filed a petition for ejectment of the petitioner(tenant) from the factory

premises with machinery installed therein on the ground of personal

CR No.6108 of 2012(O&M)

#2#

necessity of respondent no.2 Jitender Singh(who is son of respondent no.1

Amar Singh). It was stated that respondent no.2 Jitender Singh is

matriculate and unemployed and has no source of income and is dependent

upon Amar Singh-respondent no.1 landlord. Thus, on the ground of

personal necessity it was averred that the building is required.

Upon notice, all the material averments were denied and it was

stated that respondent no.2-Jitender Singh is not dependent upon Amar

Singh and is rather having sufficient accommodation and income. All other

averments were denied and prayer was made for dismissal of the petition.

From the pleadings of the parties issues were framed. Both

sides led their evidence in support of their respective claims and after

appreciating their evidence, learned Rent Controller allowed the ejectment

application and the findings thereof were affirmed by the learned Appellate

Authority. Hence the present revision petition.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone

through the case file carefully with their able assistance.

The sole argument that has been raised before this Court by the

learned Counsel for the petitioner(tenant) is that the learned Rent Controller

was not competent to order ejectment for want of jurisdiction because the

premises in dispute is a factory premises with machinery which was leased

out in favour of petitioner(tenant) and, therefore, in view of law laid down

in Om Pakash Vs. Darshan Lal & Anr. 1989(2) PLR 308, Kharaiti Lal

(Amritsar) Vs. Smt. Kamla Vati 1985 HRR 314, Dalip Singh Vs.

Bharwan Bai(deceased) & Ors. 1989(2) PLR 370 & Spun Casting &

Engg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dwijendra Lal Sinha(Dead) through Lrs & Ors.

2005(1) LAR 591, whereby it has been held that such a premises does not

CR No.6108 of 2012(O&M)

#3#

come under the defination of building as referred under Section 2(a) of the

Rent Act, and thus, when such a building is not covered under the Rent Act,

the learned Rent Controller lacked complete jurisdiction to decide on the

matter. Hence on the strength of this argument, prayer was made for

acceptance of the petition.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the caveator/respondent

has argued that both the courts below have rightly held the need of

respondents(landlords) to be genuine. It was also argued that the plea of

jurisdiction was not taken before the learned Rent Controller and therefore,

the same cannot be permitted to be allowed to be taken for the first time

before this Court.

After hearing learned Counsel for both the parties and perusing

the paper book, this Court is of the opinion that present revision petition is

devoid of any merit and the same deserves to be dismissed.

In the present case, it is