JASWANT RAI Vs. NAZIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord -petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority, Amritsar, dated 12th March, 1980, whereby the order of the Rent Controller, Amritsar, dated 16th September, 1978, directing ejectment of his tenant was set aside.

(2.) THE petitioner filed an application for eviction of the respondent from the premises described as property No. B -XVIII -18S -13, situated in the Hide Market, Amritsar, which was an evacuee property and had been purchased by him in an auction on 19th March, 1959, and obtained the sale certificate dated ?0th November, 1965, from the Rehabilitation Authorities. At the time of auction, the respondent was tenant in a portion of the property at the monthly rent of Rs. 15/ - which he had been paying to the District Rent and Managing Officer. Earlier an application Exhibit R.K. was filed by the landlord in the Court of the Rent Controller for the eviction of his tenant on the ground of non -payment of rent from 19th March, 1959 to 19th May, 1968, amounting to Rs. 1680/ -. The tenant tendered the rent in that application and consequently the application was dismissed vide order dated 12th December, 1972 Exhibit R.W. 4/3. The eviction of the respondent has been sought on the ground of non -payment of Rs. 1290/ - which had fallen due for the period ending 19th September, 1974, and on the ground of bona fide requirement and conservation and use of demised premises for the purpose other than for which it was let out.

(3.) Issues Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were found in favour of the landlord whereas issues Nos. 4, 5 and 6 were given up as per statement of the landlord made before the Rent Controller on 7th September, 1978, Issue No. 7 was found against the tenant and consequently an order of eviction was passed by the learned Rent Controller. On appeal, the appellate authority came to the conclusion that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as the respondent was an allottee of the premises in dispute and, therefore, he did not become the tenant of the landlord under section 29 of the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, as the respondent was in arrears in respect of the property at the time of transfer in favour of the petitioner and he had not paid up such arrears within 60 days of such application. Feeling aggrieved against this, the landlord has come in revision in this court.