HAZARA SINGH Vs. DHILIP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two Revision Petitions Nos. 773 and 774 of 1975 have been filed by Hazara Singh, Dalip Singh and Gurnam Singh petitioner-landlords (herein after referred to as the landlords) against the order of the Appellate Authority (district Judge), Patiala, as per which he disposed of two separate appeals filed by the two tenants Rattan Singh and Dalip Singh, who have been arrayed as respondents in the revision petition. As per this order, the appellate Authority has set aside the order passed by the Rent Controller in consequence of which the tenants were ordered to be evicted from the property in dispute.

(2.) The facts maybe briefly noticed. The property in dispute is admittedly agricultural land comprising Khasra No. 412/0-11, Khata No 377/526 as Mentioned in Jamabandi for the year 1966-67, situated at village Kuakar Majra with the limits of Municipal Committee Gobindgarh. The case of the Landlord in the ejectment petition was that their father was the owner of the land in dispute and he had leased out the same to Rakha Singh (respondent No. 3 in the Revision Petitions) on a rent of Rs. 70/- per annum for a period of twenty years in Nomani 2007 BK and that the term of the tenancy had now expired. It was further averred that after the death of the father of the landlords they became owners of the property on the basis of the will executed by their father in their favour. Rakha Singh is thus said to be a tenant under the petitioner- landlords. Various grounds for eviction were taken up. Firstly, it was alleged that Rakha Singh had without the consent of the landlords or their father changed the site in depute by making a construction thereon and further that Rakha Singh had sublet the site in dispute to the other two respondents namely, Ratan Singh and Dalip Singh who are in possession of the same. The landlords also claimed that the site was required by them for their own use and occupation.

(3.) The ejectment application was resisted by the respondents. The main objection raised on their behalf was that the ejectment application was not competent under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), as there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was also pleaded that the construction over the plot in question was made with the implied consent of the landlords. Some other technical objection were also raised and one of the important one being that the land in dispute was meant for business and could not be got vacated under the provisions of the Act. Various issues were struck by the Rent Controller to decide the controversial point. It is needless to recapitulate the finding on each issue as they are not relevant for the purpose of the present revision petition in which sole point which has been mooted is in regard to the jurisdiction of the Rent Control Authorities to try the case. The relevant issue in this behalf is issue No. 5. The Rent Controller was of the view that the land in dispute was situated within the limits of Municipal Committee, Gobindgarh and hence the ejectment application was triable by the Rent controller. He, therefore, decided that issue in favour of the landlords. As a cumulative result of all the findings under the various issues, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant- respondents.