Mahesh Grover, J.@mdashThe present revision has been preferred by the landlord against the orders of the Appellate Authority dated
11.05.1998.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petition u/s 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter
referred to as ''the Act'') was initiated by the petitioner against the respondent who is a tenant in the premises bearing No.32-D/E, situated in
D.L.F.Industrial Area, Part-I, Faridabad (hereinafter known as ''demised premises''). The demised premises were initially in the name of the wife
of the petitioner, Smt.Usha Paliwal, who suffered a decree in his favour on 26.05.1990. The premises were rented out to the respondent by
Smt.Usha Paliwal w.e.f. 22.11.1977 at a monthly rent of Rs.500/-.
3. The petition u/s 13 of the was preferred on the grounds of nonpayment of rent and personal necessity. The rent having been paid before the
Rent Controller, the only ground that survived was of bona fide need and personal necessity.
4. The respondent in his written statement had contested the petition and admitted the tenancy and the rate of rent. However, he questioned the
decree dated 26.05.1990 passed in favour of the present petitioner to say that it was mala fide and obtained with an object to defeat the
provisions of the Act.
5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :
1. Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected from the premises in dispute on the ground of personal necessity ? OPP
2. Whether the petition is not maintainable ? OPR
3. Relief
6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Appellate Authority, the petitioner is in revision and has contended to say that the Appellate Authority
had no jurisdiction to go into the veracity of the compromise decree passed as a measure of family arrangement. That apart, it was contended that
there was ample evidence on record to show that the demised premises were indeed required for the bona fide need of the petitioner who had
retired from the service and wanted to set up his own industry. In support of the aforesaid contention Mr.Jain relied upon the following judgments:
1. Amteshwar Anand v. Virender Mohan Singh and others, 2006(1) Apex Court Judgments 343 (S. C.): 2006(1) Civil Court Cases 33 7 (S. C.):
(2006-1) 142 PLR 214 (SC).
2. Som Dev and others v. Rati Ram and another, 2006(3) Apex Court Judgments
585 (S. C.): 2006(4) Civil Court Cases 427 (S. C.) : (2006-1) 142 PLR 609.
3. Ash wani Kumar Rana v. Balsharan Gautham and another, (2005-1)139PLR 389.
4. Radhe Sham v. Ruchi Rajput, (2005-3)141 PLR 167.
7. The present petition was also resisted by the respondent by contending that the transfer of the demised premises by way of a collusive decree
which is five days after the retirement of the petitioner was a sham transaction made just to circumvent the provisions of the Act and, therefore,
could not he relied upon.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and am of the opinion that the petition deserves to succeed. The petitioner who is husband of
Smt.Usha Paliwal, the original landlord of the respondent, had suffered a decree in favour of her husband. The appellate Authority relied upon
Bhoop Singh Vs. Ram Singh Major and others, to discard the aforesaid decree on the ground that the same had not been registered. I am afraid
the Appellate Authority fell in grave error by going into the challenge made by the respondent to the family settlement in proceedings under the
Rent Act.
9. In the proceedings under the Act the veracity of the family settlement and a consequent decree suffered on its basis could not be questioned at
the instance of the tenant. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority exercising its powers under the Act can confine itself to the issues
raised under the Act and cannot enter the controversy which involves the title, the validity or invalidity thereof. It certainly had the power to look in
the aspect or the relationship of landlord or tenant and whether it existed or not. But in the garb of deciding this issue it could not travel beyond the
domain specified by such an issue to question the title of the landlord.
10. Besides, the decree dated 26.05.1990 was suffered by the wife in favour of her husband in the court of law wherein claim as raised by the
petitioner was admitted by his wife.
11. This Court in Ram Lal v. Harbhagwan Dass, 1995(2) Civil Court Cases 117 (P&H) : (1995-1) 109 PLR 368 has also recognised the oral
partition of Hindu Undivided Family property. Once the law recognizes the transfer on the basis of a family settlement even on the basis of oral
settlement then it could have been questioned only by the interested/affected party on the ground of fraud or collusion. But the tenant in the
proceedings under the Act certainly had no locus to challenge the family settlement and the consequent transfer on its basis. In Ashwani Kumar
Rana v. Balsharan Gautham, 2004(2) RCR(Rent) 559 it has been held that the family settlement cannot be questioned by a tenant.
12. In view of the above, there is little hesitation to hold that the respondent had no right to question the decree and the family settlement made in
favour of the petitioner.
13. The next question that is to be determined is as to whether the petitioner required the demised premises for his own use and whether the bona
fide need existed. There is evidence on record to show that the petitioner had retired from service and had the necessary expertise and the funds to
start his own business. Even the Appellate Authority has noticed that the petitioner retired as Air Commodore from Indian Air Force on
31.05.1990 and had received Rs.4,25,000/- as retirement benefits and he had the necessary knowledge to set up a unit for manufacturing
packaging material in the shape of corrugated boxes. The project report has also been got prepared by the petitioner for the said purpose. The
need of the petitioner, therefore, stands established from the evidence on record.
14. In view of the above, once it is established that the petitioner is the landlord and requires the premises for his own personal use for setting up
an industry, there would be no escape from the inevitable conclusion but to accept the petition and direct the eviction of the respondent-tenant.
15. Mr.A.P.Bhandari, learned counsel for the respondent pleaded for time to vacate the premises as the respondent is in occupation of the same
since 1977 and would require some time to vacate the demised premises.
16. The prayer is accepted subject to the condition that the respondent furnishes an undertaking before the Rent Controller at Faridabad within a
period of four weeks from today to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises to the petitioner. In case such undertaking is filed,
the eviction of the respondent shall he kept in abeyance for three months thereafter. But in the absence of an undertaking, the petitioner shall be at
liberty to execute the order of eviction. The respondent shall, however, continue to pay the rent for the period he is in occupation of the demised
premises.