SUDERSHAN KUMAR CHHIBER Vs. BALDEV RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) J.C. Madhok sold the property in dispute to Sundershan Kumar by registered sale - deed dated 1st December, 1972, and it was recited therein that the premises were in possession of Baldev Raj Sharma as a tenant. On 16th October, 1973, Sundershan Kumar filed a petition for ejectment of Baldev Raj and also impleaded Manohar Lal. The grounds of ejectment were that Baldev Raj had sublet the premises to Manohar Lal that for a continuous period of four years both the respondents had ceased to occupy the premises in dispute, and personal necessity of the landlord. In spite of service, Baldev Raj did not appear and was proceeded against ex parte. Manohar Lal contested the petition and claimed ownership by way of adverse possession as he asserted that the house was lying vacant and he entered therein more than fifteen years age. Therefore, it was pleaded that the Rent Controller had no Jurisdiction to proceed with the matter as there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. On the contest of the parties, the following issues were framed :

(2.) After hearing the counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this revision deserves to succeed. The first point to be decided would be whether it is established on the record that Baldev Raj was inducted as a tenant by J.C. Madhok, the previous owner of the premises. It has come in the statement of Sun Sudershan Kumar J.C. Madhok (A.W. 1), Raj Saxena (A.W. 3) and Daljit Singh, one of the respondent's witness, who appeared as R.W. 1, that Baldev Raj was in occupation of the premises as a tenant. Then there is the recital in sale deed Exhibit A.1 that Bale Baldev Raj is a tenant in the premises and the vendee can obtain possession from him. Before filing the ejectment petition notices were issued to Baldev Raj and Manohar Lal sub-tenant under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and it was clearly stated therein that Baldev Raj was the tenant and Manohar Lal was the sub-tenant. Copies of the notices and the postal receipts have been exhibited on the record. None of the respondents gave reply to any of the notices. Once a definite plea of Baldev Raj being a tenant has been taken it was for him or for Manohar Lal to controvert the same. There is no evidence to rebut the evidence led by the tenant. Moreover, it has come in the statement of Raj Saxena A.W. 3 that Baldev Raj was a Booking Clerk in the Railway whereas Manohar Lal was Assistant Station Master and Probably because of the fiduciary relationship between Baldev Raj and Manohar Lal, Baldev Raj did not appear just to help Manohar Lal to claim adverse possession of the premises. Believing the aforesaid evidence led by the landlord, I hold that Baldev Raj was inducted as a tenant by the previous owner and that tenancy continued till the filing of the ejectment petition and, therefore, the Rent Controller had the jurisdiction to decide the petition.

(3.) Once it is held that Baldev Raj was a tenant and the tenancy continued till the filing of the ejectment petition, any person in possession of the premises in dispute would be deemed to be under the tenant and the possession of the occupant would not be binding on the landlord. Keeping this in view, I proceed to decide the grounds of ejectment.