HARBHJAN KAUR Vs. KARTAR CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord petitioner has filed this petitioner against the order of the Appellate Authority, Jullundur, dated lath September, 1976, whereby the order of the Rent Controller dismissing the ejectment application was maintained.

(2.) The petitioner-landlord filed an application for ejectment of respondent No. 1 from the premises in dispute on the allegation that Kartar Chand tenant-respondent was given on rent the shop in dispute at Rs. 80 per month from 1st of January, 1973 and rent note dated 18th of January, 1973 Exhibit P. 12 was executed. It was pleaded that the said tenant was in arrears for 6 months starting from February, 1973 and that he had sub-let the shop to respondent No. 2 Dwarka Dass without any authority. In the written statement filed on behalf of Kartar Chand, it was pleaded that the sub-letting was to the knowledge of the landlord and Dwarka Dass agreed to pay the rent to the landlord in his name and continued to occupy the premises. In the written statement filed on behalf of Dwarka Dass it was stated that the landlord was not the owner of the premises in question. In fact the property was not part and parcel of property No. EE 142/1 and was No. EE 141. The tenancy in favour of Kartar Chand was denied. According to him, this shop and another belonged to one Ajim Bux, a Muslim, who had rented out the said premises to Bhagat Ram, the father of Respondent No. 2, at a monthly rent of Rs. 1.50. After the partition of the country the property vested in the Central Government and Bhagat Ram continued to occupy the premises under District Rent and Manging Officer. Bhagat Ram died in 1960 and after his death respondent No. 2 being his legal heir, continued to occupy the said premises under the District Rent and Managing Officer. In December 1972 a person calling himself a Sanitary Inspector came and wanted that necessary repairs be effected in the property or else it will be demolished. The respondent being a poor man and at the instigation of Harbhajan Singh, husband of the landlord, agreed that Harbhajan Singh should spend Rs. 1,000 for its repairs and in lieu of that respondent No. 2 would deliver possession of a Chobara and half portion of the southern side of the shop for one year and southern portion is in possession of Ved Parkash under an agreement dated 19th December, 1972. The rent note alleged to have been executed by respondent No. 1 Kartar Chand in favour of the landlord was fictitious and collusive. Possession thereof was with respondent No. 2 Dwarka Dass in his own right. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-

(3.) The Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment application as it came to the conclusion that Kartar Chand was not the tenant under the landlady as alleged and, therefore, the question of subletting to him by Drarka Dass did not arise. In appeal the findings of the Rent Controller were affirmed by the Appellate Authority. Feeling aggrieved against this, the landlady has come up in revision in this Court.