VISHWA MITTER Vs. SURINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VISHWAR Mitter tenant challenge his eviction from the house in dispute as ordered by the Rent Controller which order was affirmed by the appellate authority in this revision petition. Smt. Surinder Kaur, the landlady claimed ejectment of Vishwa Mitter tenant from the house in dispute on two grounds :- (1) For non-payment of arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. (2) That she required the premises in dispute for her personal necessity. She wanted to shift to the house in dispute in Kartarpur from Ludhiana. At that time her husband had suffered injuries in an accident and her son was to be settled at Kartarpur as a carpenter. Since arrears of rent were paid on the first date of hearing, the only ground that survived for decision was the personal necessity of the landlady to occupy the premises in dispute. The Rent Controller framed the following issues :-

(2.) ONE of the grounds taken up in the petition is that sufficient opportunity was not allowed to the tenant to lead his evidence. The evidence of the tenant was wrongly closed under orders or the Rent Controller. It is asserted that though the case remained pending for sufficient time, there was no fault of the tenant in not producing his evidence. On some of the dates of hearing, advocates were on strike and on some of the dattes of hearing, the Presiding Officer did not hold the Court. This ground as such cannot be accepted. The record of the Rent Controller shows that the evidence on behalf of the landlady was closed on January 25, 1988 and for evidence of the tenant, the case was adjourned to February 22, 1988. Process fee and diet money along with list of witnesses were required to be filed within a week. On that date, the lawyers abstained from appearing in the Court and the request for four more dates of hearing fixed in the case. Thereafter May 27, 1988 was fixed on which the Presiding Officer had not joined the duty as he was availing joining time. The case was adjourned to June 6, 1988 for necessary orders. On that day also the position remained the same and the case was adjourned to August 5, 1988. The order shows that no witness was present and the case was adjourned to October 31, 1988 as final opportunity. On that day, the case was adjourned to February 23, 1989 as Presiding Officer was on leave. On that day the evidence of the tenant was closed; there being no justification shown for further adjournment under Order 17 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) THE other ground taken up is that Smt. Surinder Kaur is not the owner of the house in dispute. Merely because she had let out the premises to the tenant would not mean that she had the right to claim ejectment of the tenant on the ground of her personal necessity. There is no merit in it. For this no case has been made out either in the pleadings on in the evidence. In para 1 of the application for ejectment it was asserted by Smt. Surinder Kaur that she was the landlady and the respondent Vishwa Mitter was a tenant under her at a monthly rent of Rs. 100/- p.m. and there existed relationship of landlady and tenant between the two parties. Para 1 of the application was admitted as correct in the reply filed by Vishwa Mitter. In view of the aforesaid pleadings, there was no justification for the authorities below to treat Smt. Surinder Kaur not as a landlady. This point was not raised even before the appellate authority. There is no discussion by the appellate authority on the point and it cannot be allowed to be urged for the first time in the revision petition.