RAM LABHAYA Vs. BAGHA MAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority, Hoshiarpur, dated 25th August, 1975, whereby the order of the Rent Controller directing his ejectment, has been maintained.

(2.) Bagha Mal filed the present application for ejectment on 30th October, 1972, on the ground that he is the owner and landlord of the premises in dispute and Ram Labhaya is in occupation of the same as tenant under him on payment of Rs. 60/- as rent per month. The ejectment was sought on the ground of non-payment of rent o the tune of Rs. 180/- for three months, from 1st July, 1972 to 30th September, 1972. In the written statement filed on behalf of Ram Labhaya, these allegations were denied and it was pleaded that he is in occupation of the premises in dispute as a tenant under Balram Kumar and Satish Kumar sons of Madan Lal deceased and has also executed a rent note in respect of the disputed premises in their favour. The said rent-note is dated 8th August, 1972, and is Bxhibit R. 1. In the replication filed on behalf of the landlord Bagha Mal, it was stated that Madan Lal has been letting out the premises on his behalf to Ram Labhaya as a tenant under him. He is the owner and landlord and thus Ram Labhaya was holding as a tenant under him. Regarding the said rent-note it was stated that it has been fabricated in order to set up a false defence after the death of Madan Lal. It was further pleaded that the lease was made by Madan Lal deceased on behalf of the landlord as he was his oldest son and was assisting him in the management of his property. Madan Lal died on 15th November, 1971. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues :

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the authorities under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, could not decide the question of title as to whether Bagha Mal is the owner of the property or not. Unless Bagha Mal is proved to he the owner of the property, admittedly, he is not entitled to seek ejectment of Ram Labhaya petitioner. According to the learned counsel, unless it is proved that Bagha Mal is the owner of the premises in dispute, it could not be held that Madan Lal, his deceased son rented out the premises to the petitioner Ram Labhaya on his behalf. This is particularly so, when the title of Bagha Mal is being disputed by his own grants-sons, i.e. the sons of Madan Lal deceased. Under these circumstances, it was argued that the authorities under the Act could not go into this question and should have directed the parties to go to the Civil Court for the determination of the question of the title between Bagha Mal and his grand-sons.