GIAN SINGH Vs. BACHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's revision against whom ejectment application was dismissed by the Rent Controller, but allowed in appeal by the appellate authority.

(2.) BACHAN Singh, landlord, sought the ejectment of his tenant Gian Singh from the first floor of hte building on the ground that he bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation. According to the landlord, earlier, this building was the ownership of his father Labhu Ram, but through a family arrangement amongst Labhu Ram and his two sons, namely Harbhajan Lal and Bachan Singh, the demised premises had fallen to his share. In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant, these averments were denied. It was pleaded that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The landlord did not require the premises for his bonafide requirement, as alleged. The learned Rent Controller found that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties and that the alleged partition was a device to eject the tenant. Consequently, the application was dismissed vide order dated October 8, 1987. In appeal, the learned appellate authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller and found that earlier Bachan Singh had filed an ejectment application against the tenant Gian Singh on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent and therein no such objection was taken on behalf of the tenant; rather, he had tendered the arrears of rent on the first date of hearing and thus accepted Bachan Singh as his landlord. That being so, it was not open for him to challenge the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties in the subsequent ejectment application. As regards the bonafide requirement, the appellate authority found that the landlord was not in occupation of any other building in his own right and, therefore, was entitled to seek ejectment of his tenant from the demised premises. Consequently, the eviction order was passed on December 19, 1987.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the said C.M. be allowed and in view of the averments made therein since the landlord had got another house in his occupation, he was not entitled to seek ejectment of his tenant. It was submitted that the landlord had not come to the Court with clean hands as he had not disclosed all the properties which were in his occupation.