S TARLOK SINGH Vs. SEWA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A question of significant importance which arises for consideration in this case is whether a tenant inducted by an allottee of evacuee/rehabilitation property before conveyance deed is granted in favour of the allottee can be evicted by a civil court without a ground of ejectment or can be evicted only under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, on one of the grounds specified therein.

(2.) EVACUEE property No. 453/54 situated in the town of Jullundur was allotted to Ram Lal by the Custodian/rehabilitation Department. He came in possession of the same. On the death of Ram Lal, Smt. Parwati alias Bharawan Bai came into possession of the said property as his heir under a Will. Smt. Parwati inducted Tarlok Singh as a tenant and delivered vacant possession of the premises to him. Thereafter vide document Ex. P1, dated 17th Sept. 1966, Smt. Parwati transferred her rights to Sewa Singh for a consideration of Rs. 6,000 and received the full consideration. Since Tarlok Singh tenant did not pay rent, Sewa Singh filed the present suit for ejectment of Tarlok Singh and also for recovery of arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 270. The suit was filed in Civil Court instead of before the Rent Controller under the East Punjab Urban Rent restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called the Rent Act) on the plea that the property in dispute was still Government property as proprietary rights had not so far been conferred and, therefore, the notification exempting the applicability of the Rent Act applied to the property in dispute. Tarlok Singh tenant pleaded that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit, he admitted that Smt. Parwati Devi had inducted him as a tenant and, therefore, she was a necessary party; that Smt. Parwati Devi could not legally sell the property in dispute as proprietary rights had not been conferred on her and, therefore, there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. On the issues framed, evidence was led and the trial court by a judgment and decree dated 18th April 1970, held that the Civil Court did have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit since the property in dispute still belonged to the Government and the Government properties were exempt from the operation of the Rent Act. Smt. Parwati Devi had appeared as a witness and she proved that she had sold her rights to Sewa Singh plaintiff and, therefore, it was held that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. In the result, the suit for ejectment as also for recovery of Rs. 270 as arrears of rent was decreed. The tenant felt aggrieved and filed an appeal which came up for hearing before Additional District Judge Jullundur. The lower appellate Court upheld the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. The defendant has now come up in this second appeal.

(3.) THE found facts on which this appeal has to be decided are these. Admittedly, the property in dispute belonged to the Custodian/rehabilitation Department and was allotted to Ram Lal and on his death Smt. Parwati Devi came in possession as his heir under the Will. She gave vacant possession of the property in dispute to Tarlok Singh under a contract of tenancy and while Tarlok Singh was still in occupation of the same as a tenant, she transferred her rights in favour of Sewa Singh on receipt of full consideration although the sale certificate or conveyance deed had not been issued by the Rehabilitation Department either in the name of Ram Lal or in her own name, with the result that the Rehabilitation Department continued to be the owner of the property and Ram Lal, thereafter Parwati Devi and them Sewa Singh, continued to possess the rights of an allottee without ownership rights. On these facts, the first question to be decided would be whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. On the facts enumerated above, there is no escape from the conclusion that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Once Smt. Parwati Devi gave vacant possession of the property in dispute to the appellant as a tenant, the relationship of landlord and tenant came into being between them and a similar relationship came into being between the parties after Smt. Parwati Devi sold her rights to Sewa Singh, plaintiff-respondent. Hence, the finding recorded by the courts below in this regard is upheld.