Rajendra Sharma vs M/s. M.S. Goods Carriers

Jaswant Singh, J.—The landlord is in revision against the concurrent judgments passed by both the Authorities below whereby his eviction

petition u/s 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control and Eviction) Act, 1973 was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller, Faridabad vide judgment

dated 22.01.2002 and findings duly affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority, Faridabad vide judgment dated 01.08.2002, while dismissing the

appeal of petitioner-landlord. The petitioner-Rajendra Sharma purchased the demised premises from the original owner Sh. Devender Pal Batra

on payment of total sale consideration of Rs. 2,40,000/- on 07.10.1998. The original owner executed an agreement to sell (Ex. P2), a general

power of attorney (Ex. P1) and a receipt of the aforesaid payment in favour of petitioner of 07.10.1998 (Ex. P3). He subsequently wrote a letter

dated 14.10.1998 (Ex. P4) to the respondent-tenant confirming the change of ownership and landlordship. Thus, the petitioner-landlord having

stepped into the shoes of the earlier landlord, filed an ejectment application on 01.12.1998 seeking the eviction of the respondent-tenant on the

sole ground of arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.12.1997 to 31.12.1998 @ Rs. 1200/- per month, total amounting of Rs. 15,600/-.

The tenant contested the relationship as well as the arrears of rent.

Accordingly, the issues of relationship and arrears of rent were framed and both the Authorities below have held that there existed relationship

of landlord and tenant in view of letter dated 14.10.1998 (Ex. P4), whereby the earlier landlord divested himself of that status in favour of the

present petitioner, while the issue of arrears of rent was decided against the landlord in the light of the tenant having tendered the entire arrears at

the initial stage of ejectment proceedings on 20.04.1999 before the Rent Controller.

Learned counsel for the landlord has not been able to point out any perversity in the concurrent findings recorded on the issue of arrears of rent,

in favour of the tenant, warranting interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. In view of the above, finding no merit in the present

revision petition, the same is hereby dismissed.