HANS RAJ Vs. RAJ IRON STORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted. The appeal is disposed of hereunder.

(2.) This is an appeal from the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High court at Chandigarh. By the impugned judgment, the High court has confirmed the order dismissing the ejectment proceeding against the respondent. The ejectment proceeding was filed by the appellant claiming himself to be the' landlord of the premises in dispute. The premises in dispute was actually let out by one Vidya Prakash who, according to the appellant, was the brother of the appellant and let out the property as an agent of the appellant. Vidya Prakash died sometime in 1967. Thereafter, his wife Savitri Devi had been collecting the rent on behalf of the landlord. The claim of Hans Raj, the appellant, is that he is the sole landlord and that Vidya Prakash was not the landlord, hence, not entitled to receive any rent on his behalf. Therefore, in terms of S. 2 (c) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act') which defines the term landlord', the appellant claims that Hans Raj was the only landlord and was entitled to receive the rent. The tenant not having paid the rent, as alleged, inspire of demands in terms of S. 13 (2) of the Act, the appellant was entitled to eviction. It appears that having regard to peculiar course of the litigation that took place, this question has not been considered in the light of the relevant evidence i. e. without taking into consideration the proceedings between the appellant and the widow of Vidya Prakash, resulting in R. S. A No. 609 of 1987 decided by the High court on 16/2/1987 and also without judging the effect of the registered sale deed executed in 1937 in favour of the appellant. In the light of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that it is in the interest of justice it is necessary to set aside the Order of the High court and also the Order dismissing the eviction petition on the ground that Hans Raj, the appellant, was not the owner of the premises in question.

(3.) Therefore, the judgment and order of the High court are set aside and also the order of the first Appellate Authority as well as that of the Rent Controller dated 27/1/1977 dismissing the ejectment proceeding. We direct that the Rent Controller will go into the question as to whether the appellant was entitled to eviction because of failure under S. 13 (2) of the Act, aftertaking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the plea of the respondent-tenant that he was paying rent to Vidya Prakash and after his death to his widow on the basis that he was the person who let out the premises to them. Savitri Devi who claims to be the legal heir of the deceased Vidya Prakash should be made a party in the proceedings before the Rent Controller.