JAGIR SINGH Vs. JAGDISH PAL SAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been field by the tenant against an order of the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, dated March 22, 1978.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that Jagdish Lal landlord filed an application for ejectment of the tenant inter alia on the ground that he required the premises occupied by the tenant for his personal use and occupation. The other grounds were also taken but they are not relevant for the decision of this revision petition. The application was contested by the tenant, who pleaded that he was not a tenant under Jagdish Lal (now respondent in the revision petition) and that he did not require the premises for his own use the occupation. The learned Rent Controller gave a finding that Jagir Singh (now petitioner in the revision petition) as a tenant under Jagdish Lal respondent and that the respondent required the premises for his bonafide use and occupation. The tenant went up in appeal before the Appellate Authority, who affirmed the order of the Rent Controller and dismissed the same. The tenant has come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is not proved to be a tenant under the respondent. He argues that the rent note, which is alleged to have been executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent, has been held to be inadmissible in evidence as it was an unregistered document. According to the counsel, Appellate Authority has taken into consideration the counterfoils of the receipts (Exhibits A6 to A15) given by Charan Dass, father of the respondent, to the tenant. He submits that from the receipts no inference can be drawn that the petitioner was a tenant under the respondent. He has also made a reference to Narota Ram v. Bhawant Krishan and others, 1960 62 PunLR 166, to support his argument.