RAI SINGH Vs. BALWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAI Singh has filed this revision petition against the judgment of the Appellate Authority allowing the appeal of respondent -tenant and dismissing the ejectment application filed by him.

(2.) RAI Singh filed a petition under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), alleging that Balwant Singh, respondent, has been occupying property No. 910 on a monthly rent of Rs. 25/ - and property No. 910/1 on a monthly rent of Rs. 46/ - situated in Dana Mandi, Adampur, District Jullundur as a tenant since the time of his father Diwan Singh. As a sole legatee under a will dated the 10th October, 1964, executed by ghis father Diwan Singh, he (Rai Singh) became the owner of both the premises in dispute. It may be mentioned that Karam Singh, a brother of the petitioner, filed a suit for declaration that he along with the petitioner was the owner of the premises in dispute along with the other properties left by Diwan Singh deceased. The matter was referred to arbitration of Shri Amrik Singh. He gave his award in favour of the petitioner on the 18th of October, 1967. This award was made the rule of the Court and the suit of Karam Singh was dismissed on the 30th of May, 1968, by the learned trial Court. Balwant Singh appeared as a witness for Karam Singh and thus knew about the dismissal of the suit. Petitioner served notices on Balwant Singh terminating his tenancy and for payment of the arrears of rent. The ejection was sought on the ground that Balwant Singh had not paid rent of property No. 910 since 1st of October, 1964 and of property No. 910/1 since 1st of January, 1966. Balwant Singh has denied the title of of the petitioner when he made a reply to the notice issued by him. Therefore, he was liable to be ejected. Balwant Singh contested the application. He contended that the shops had not been correctly described. His shop had been separately let out and a composite petition for ejectment of both the premises was not maintainable. That Diwan Singh had left other legal heirs apart from the petitioner and that he alone could not file the petition. He also averred that property No. 910 belongs to Karam Singh from whom he had taken it on rent and it is incorrect that Diwan Singh had been the landlord in respect of this property. Property No. 910/1 had been taken by him on rent from Diwan Singh at the rate of Rs. 20/ - per month and after the death of Diwan Singh, the rent was paid to his son Karam Singh for each month in advance. He was not liable to pay any rent.

(3.) ANOTHER set of facts may be mentioned here that the ejectment application was filed on the 7th of January, 1969. Rai Singh also filed a suit for the recovery of the rent of these premises against Balwant Singh. The suit was compromised. Balwant Singh along with his counsel made a statement in the Civil Court on the interpretation of which arguments have been addressed before me at some length. Therefore, it will be useful to reproduce that statement: