KAKA SINGH Vs. SANTOKH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners filed an application under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (for short the Act) for the ejectment of the respondent from the house in dispute on several grounds, one of them being non-payment of rent. The respondent contested the application, denied his status as a tenant and claimed himself to be the owner of the premises in dispute.

(2.) The petitioners led evidence to prove that one Smt. Balwant Kaur was the original owner of the demised premises; that she 1et it out to the respondent vide Annexure P. 3 dated November 16, 1953 and that they purchased the said property from Smt. Balwant Kaur vide sale deed Ex. P.4 dated June 11, 1969. The Rent Controller accepted this evidence and ordered the ejectment of the respondent.

(3.) On appeal by the respondent; the Appellate Authority did not reverse the findings of the Rent Controller regarding the proof of the sale deed as well as the rent note. It, however, reversed the finding regarding the relationship between the parties on the ground that the boundaries and the construction in the rent note did not tally with the boundaries given in the application and the map attached therewith. It further observed that the statement of the respondent Ex. P. 10 was wrongly relied upon by the Rent Controller in corroboration of the rent note because in that statement Santokh Singh never admitted that he took the property from Balwant Kaur on lease. I am constrained to observe that the observations of the learned Appellate Authority run counter to the record and are based on its misreading. The property in dispute is described as Tavela in rent, note Ex. P. 3 and is stated to be bounded as under :-