RAM RATTAN Vs. KULDIP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant-petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, dated 20th May, 1574, whereby the order of the Rent Controller directing his ejectment has been maintained.

(2.) The landlord filed an application for ejectment, dated 2nd January, 1973, on the ground of non-payment of rent by the tenant from June, 1969 onwards. Rent was being claimed at the rate of Rs. 10/- per month. The plea taken by the tenant in the written statement filed by him was that he never took any premises on rent from the landlord. It was, however admitted by him that he was in possession of he room and for that some amount by was of compensation for use and occupation could be recovered by the landlord. In the replication filed on behalf of the landlord, the allegations of the tenant were denied and it was specifically pleaded that Ram Rattan is the tenant under him on the premises in dispute. On 12th March, 1973, the Rent Controller framed the following issues :

(3.) The learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner contended that the issues framed earlier were correct and findings should have been given on those issuer. According to him, since the tenant denied the relation-ship of landlord and tenant between the parties in his written statement, it was incumbent on the Rent Controller to give a finding on that matter. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any force in his contention. In the statement of the tenant recorded under Order 10 rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties wat admitted. Moreover, there is a notice, marked Exhibit R. 2, dated 2nd November, 1972, sent, on behalf of the tenant through his Advocate, Shri Harkishan Lal Soni, in which it has been clearly stated that "I have to inform you that my client is in occupation as a month to month tenant in one room under you at a monthly rent of Rs. 10." In view of this clear admission of the tenant, even prior to the application for ejectment, he could not be allowed to take a plea that he was not the tenant but he may be treated as a trespasser, it appears that this plea was taken just to oust the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller Under these circumstances It does not lie in the mouth of the tenant-petitioner to urge in this Court that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.