MOHINDER PAL SINGH Vs. GURMIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners who are aggrieved, against the order dated 06.10.2007, whereby their eviction was ordered from the premises in dispute and the order dated 23.01.2010 dismissing their appeal against the aforesaid order, have approached this Court by way of the instant revision petition.

(2.) ONE Uttam Singh, since deceased (predecessor -in -interest of the respondents) filed ejectment application against Hari Singh(since deceased),now represented by the petitioners from the demised premises submitting that he was owner and landlord of the shop in dispute which was given on rent to respondent -Hari Singh @ Rs.25/ - per month. Property in dispute is situated in khasra No.67//78 of main bazaar, Kurali, which was previously owned in equal shares by Uttam Singh as well as Rachan Singh. After the death of Rachan Singh, Gurdial Kaur became owner of half share. Sub -Judge, Kharar vide his judgement dated 05.01.1985 in a partition suit held that Gurdial Kaur was owner of half share in khasra No.67//78 and accordingly a preliminary decree for partition of the property was pa ssed. Later on, Gurdial Kaur sold her total land in the aforesaid khasra number to Sujjan Singh vide sale deed dated 22.07.1987 alleging herself to be owner of 5 marlas out of khasra No.67//78 and one marla out of khasra No.67//79. But in the civil suit it was held that she had no share in khasra No.67//79 and to that effect sale deed was declared as void and inoperative. However, it was held that she had been left with no share in khasra No.67//78. Again, in civil suit titled as "Uttam Singh versus Gurdial Kaur" , decided on 06.02.1990, it was held that Gurdial Kaur was left with no share in khasra No. 67//78 having sold her entire share to Sujjan Singh. Since the property in dispute was given on rent to respondent by Rachan Singh, who was a co -owner of the property in dispute with Uttam Singh and who was now the sole owner and landlord of the property in dispute, was entitled to receive the rent from that date. It was further averred that respondent Hari Singh filed another suit, which was dismissed on 09.09.1992 holding that respondent was a tenant of Uttam Singh and not of Gurdial Kaur widow of Rachan Singh. Uttam Singh had also received the rent earlier from Hari Singh vide rent application No. 33 of 22.08.1990. Since Hari Singh was in arrears of rent from 01.06.1991, he was liable to be ejected.

(3.) RESPONDENT Hari Singh filed written statement and contested the eviction application raising an objection to the effect that relationship of landlord and tenant does not exist between the parties and therefore the application was not maintainable. It was further averred that Rachan Singh and Uttam Singh were brothers. Rachan Singh had constructed the shop in dispute in khasra No.67//78 and during his life time had rented out the same @ Rs. 25 per month. After his death he was paying rent to Gurdial Kaur, his widow. Gurdial Kaur had alienated the shop in dispute through the sale deed dated 26.09.1995 to Amarjit Kaur d/o Piara Singh, resident of Kurali. The respondent delivered the possession of the shop in dispute to Amarjit Kaur who is now owner and in possession of the shop in dispute. Hence, the suit was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed.