RULIA RAM SHARMA Vs. AMAR PAL SINGH BHALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller, dated January 23, 1987, whereby the ejectment application filed by the landlord Rulia Ram Sharma under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, (hereinafter called the Act), was dismissed.

(2.) SMT. Beant Chopra was the original landlady whereas Puran Singh was the original tenant under her, Puran Singh, tenant, died on March 13, 1983, leaving behind two married daughters, a son and a widow. Smt. Beant Chopra sold the entire house to Ravi Kant son of Rulia Ram Sharma on May 23, 1985. Later on, a suit was filed by Rulia Ram Sharma against his son Ravi Kant for declaration that he was the owner of half of the house, indispute. The said suit was decreed on March 10, 1986. Thus, Rulia Ram Sharma claimed himself to be the owner of the demised promises which were given on rent originally to Puran Singh. The said Rulia Ram Sharma retired on May 1, 1969 and he filed the present ejectment application claiming himself to be a "specified landlord" on March 18, 1986, i. e. within one year of the coming into force of the amended Act. The said application was contested on behalf of the respondents inter alia on the ground that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that the married daughters of the deceased Puran Singh, who were necessary parties had not been impleaded as parties to the ejectment application. The Kent Controller, after allowing the permission to contest framed issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. The learned Rent Controller found that the married daughters of the deceased tenant were necessary parties and, therefore, the ejectment application was bad for non-joinder of them. It was further held that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Consequently the ejectment application was dismissed vide impugned order dated January 23, 1987.

(3.) IT is no more disputed that Rulia Ram Sharma could not claim himself to be a "specified landlord" as he had retired from service on May 1, 1969, when he was not the owner of the demised premises. That being so, no application under Section 13-A of the Act, was maintainaule on his behalf.