Pertaining to Punjab and Haryana.
I am landlord and filed eviction petition against my tenant in a shop in 2001.
The tenant filed an application under order 1 rule 10 for impleading other co-owners.
The rent agreement is between the tenant and me only.
He has been giving me rent since 1989 and from 2001 in court.
The application of 1 10 was dismissed by the rent controller in year 2009 and no appeal or revision was filed by the tenant against this order so this has become final.
Grounds of eviction were
1. Material Impairment of the value of building as the tenant has encroached front 5 feet teh bazari land and raised wall and affixed shutter thus encroaching about 150 sq feet of govt. land. And installing shutter 5 feet ahead of the actual property has stopped the light air to enter the demised premises.
2. Tenant having sufficient accommodation. Te tenant purchased a 4-5 times bigger shop with right of roof in year 1995 that is 6 years after obtaining tenancy of the shop from us. WE have proved this from sale deed, registrar, municipal committee etc and he has also admitted having the shop. In the response to this ground he said he had taken this shop as a godown. He has another godown as per his sales tax vat records on rent. The property purchased by him clearly mentioned as shop in the sale deed in favor of the tenant. In Haryana rent act this ground is available for only residential properties. But we have taken ground that vide order of honorable supreme court of India the Residential and commercial properties has come at par.
The rent controlled allowed our petition and tenant has appealed in the sessions.
In sessions the tenant says that
1. In the rent agreement we had allowed him to do minor changed and affix shutter. But the fact is we allowed him to put the shutter on the demised premises and not after encroaching the 5 feet municipal land on a nallah.
2. In support of our ground number two we put a citation. In which the rent controller had turned down but the high appellate and high court had allowed on the ground that the tenant has acquired sufficient accommodation and thus ordered ev iction. The tenant argued that since the these powers of ordering eviction are excersised by the High court. The rent controller could not have used the same powers.
Please advise about your views on this case.