DAULAT RAM Vs. GIRDHARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition, under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, (hereinafter to be called the Act), by the landlord-petitioner was allowed by the Rent Controller Barnala, vide his order dated August 31, 1973, and the tenant- respondent was directed to vacate the house (hereinafter to be called the premises, in dispute). Appeal against the said order was, however, accepted by the Appellate Authority and the eviction petition was dismissed by order, dated June 7, 1976, which has been challenged in the present revision petition.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that the landlord-petitioner filed the eviction petition through his Mukhtiar-i-am, Ravinder Singla. for evicting the tenant-respondent from the premises, in dispute, situated in Barnala on the grounds that the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 33/-per mensem had not been paid by the respondent with effect from June l, 1971 till the date of the filing of the eviction petition and that the petitioner required the premises in dispute, bona fide for his own occupation, It was also averred that the notice for vacation of premises, in dispute, had also been served. In reply, the case of the respondent was that advance rent for five years for the period from June l, 1971 to May 31, 1976 had been already Paid in the petitioner and a duly executed receipt, Exhibit R. 4, had been obtained, that the lease of the premises, in dispute, was for an indefinite period and no legally valid notice terminating the tenancy had been served perior to the filing of the eviction petition and that the petitioner did not require the premises bona fide for his own occupation

(3.) After the evidence had been adduced on both sides, the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the lease was not for indefinite period but was for one year which had expired prior to the filing of the eviction petition and a valid notice as required under the law had also been served and that the requirement of the petitioner for self-occupation of the premises, in dispute, was bona fide. As regards the payment of advance rent, a categorical finding was returned that the advance rent had not been paid and that the receipt, Exhibit R, 4, relating thereto was a forged one, So far as the arrears of rent were concerned, the respondent had paid the same along with costs and interest on the first date of hearing and as such, the ground relating thereto did not survive. In appeal, the Appellate Authority concurred with the findings of the Rent Controller regarding the payment of advance rent and that the receipt, Exhibit R, 4, was a forged document, However, it was held that the lease was for an indefinite period and the tenancy had not been terminated by a valid notice prior to the filing of the eviction petition and as such, the petitioner had no locus standi to file the same, The finding of the Rent Controller regarding bona fide requirement by the petitioner was also reversed and it was concluded that it was not proved that the alleged requirement by the petitioner was bona fide.