AMARJIT SINGH Vs. PAWAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner impugns the order of the executing Court dated 18th September, 1989, whereby the objections disputing his liability to be ejected as a result of the order of the Rent Controller dated 23rd January, 1987 have been dismissed and he has been ordered to be evicted. Briefly, the backdrop of the case is as follows.

(2.) The respondent-landlord filed Rent Case No. 3 of 24th January, 1985, inter alia, pleading that respondent No. 1 was his tenant and respondent No. 2, the present petitioner had been inducted as a sub-tenant, and, therefore, both were liable to be evicted. The court accepted this plea amongst other grounds pleaded by the landlord and directed the eviction of the respondents, including the present petitioner. However, the case of the petitioner is that on that very date i.e. 23rd January, 1987, he entered into a compromise with the landlord whereby he was accepted as a direct tenant under the landlord and the statement of the parties were recorded by the Rent Controller to that effect which were duly signed or authenticated by respective counsel for the parties. The statement of the petitioner, copy of which is Annexure 'B' on the record, is to the following effect :

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel, I am of the opinion that the Court does not appear to have adopted the correct procedure to record a conclusive finding as to whether the petitioner has become a direct tenant under the landlord and was therefore, not liable to be evicted in execution of the order dated 23rd January, 1987 referred to above. Since the parties were at variance with regard to the factual position, they to my mind should have been allowed to lead their evidence in support of their respective pleas and only on screening that evidence, the court could possibly record a conclusive evidence. The last line of petitioner's statement as reproduced above, does indicate that the statements of the parties were recorded by the Rent Controller before the passing of the final order dated 23rd January, 1987. Had the order been passed earlier to the recording of the statement, there was possibly no occasion for recording the same. Therefore, I allow this petition and while setting aside the impugned order, direct the lower Court to go into the matter afresh and decide the case in the light of the above noted observations after recording evidence of the parties.