HARBANS LAL Vs. KISHAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed by the legal representatives of Puran Chand petitioner directed against the judgment of the Appellate Authority, Bathinda dated 3.8.1998. By virtue of the impugned judgment, the learned Appellate Authority had set aside the order passed by the learned Rent Controller and instead an order of eviction was passed against the petitioners.

(2.) THE relevant facts are that Kishan Chand respondent had filed a petition for eviction against Puran Chand predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners with respect to the suit premises. It had been averred that respondent is the owner of the suit property by virtue of the sale deed dated 27.8.1968. Puran Chand had taken the suit property on rent from the respondent vide rent note dated 1.9.1969 at a monthly rent of Rs. 30/-. He is in arrears of rent from 1.9.1974. Furthermore, it was alleged that property in question is in a dilapidated condition. It has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The roof of the property even has been changed i.e. of room No. 3. In the reply filed, the petition had been contested. It was denied that there is any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was further asserted that question of title is involved and, therefore, only civil Court can adjudicate the dispute between the parties about title of the parties. The rent note set up by the respondent was stated to be in-admissible in evidence because it was not registered. In fact Puran Chand claimed that he himself is the owner of the suit property. He had not executed any rent note in favour of the respondent. The sale deed was described to be a forged document. It was pleaded further that from 1968 to 1972 relations of Puran Chand with his children were not cordial. He suffered from frustration and mental dis-order. The respondent was on friendly terms with him. He might have obtained his signatures by mis-representation. It has been asserted that he has been in continuous possession without payment of rent.

(3.) AT the time when the matter was fixed for arguments, none appeared on behalf of the petitioners. In these circumstances, the Court did not have the advantage of hearing the petitioners' learned counsel.