MANGAT RAM Vs. RAMESH CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of Civil Revision 3185 and Civil Revision 3228, both of 1995, as both these petitions are between the same parties and in respect of the same property and common questions of law and fact arise for determination in these revision petitions.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that on 15.6.1988, the landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), seeking ejectment of Mangat Ram tenant, from the demised premises, alleging therein that Smt. Pritama Devi and her sons and daughters, were the owners of the house in question and in September, 1977, the previous owners sold a portion of the said house in favour of the applicant, Ramesh Chander and the remaining portion was retained by the previous owners. It was alleged that Mangat Ram was already a tenant on a portion of the house, which was purchased by Ramesh Chander, applicant, under the previous owners, on a monthly rent of Rs. 60/- and with the sale of the said portion of the house by the previous owners in favour of Ramesh Chander, applicant, Mangat Ram had become tenant under the applicant, on the same terms and conditions. It was alleged that there existed a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was alleged that Ramesh Chander, applicant, did not want to keep Mangat Ram as his tenant under the demised premises because the applicant bonafide required the demised premises for his own use and occupation. It was alleged that at present the applicant was in possession of only one room on the ground floor and two rooms on the first floor, besides kitchen, bathroom and verandah and that it was insufficient to meet his requirements and the requirements of his family, which consisted of the applicant himself, his wife, his widowed mother, his aunt (dependent upon the applicant) and children including married daughters, who visit him frequently. The said petition was contested by Mangat Ram, tenant, denying the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was alleged that even though the demised premises were purchased by the applicant in his name, yet he (Mangat Ram) had contributed equally in its price and registration expenses, as per mutual compromise dated 11.9.1977. It was alleged that in fact he (Mangat Ram) was not residing in the demised premises as tenant, but was a co-sharer and co-owner. It was alleged that the rate of rent, charged by the previous owner, was Rs. 17/- per month, but the applicant had managed to get wrong record of assessment prepared in connivance with the officials of the cantonment board. It was denied that he was a tenant over the demised premises and it was alleged that in fact he was a co- sharer and co-owner and as per compromise dated 11.9.1977, he had paid half the price and registration expenses for the purchase of the demised premises, even though the sale-deed had been executed in favour of the applicant exclusively. It was alleged that it was mutually agreed between the parties that Mangat Ram would be entitled to get his 1/2 share in the house, get it partitioned, transferred and mutated in his name through the Court. Various issues were framed by the Rent Controller.

(3.) DURING pendency of the aforesaid ejectment petition, Ramesh Chander, landlord, filed another petition under Section 13 of the Act, seeking ejectment of Mangat Ram, tenant, from the demised premises, on the ground of non-payment of rent. It was alleged that the rate of rent was Rs. 60/- per month and that the tenant had neither paid nor tendered the rent w.e.f. 1.6.1988. The said petition was contested by Mangat Ram, tenant, by filing written statement, taking up similar pleas as were taken by him in the previous petition and that the rate of rent was Rs. 17/- per month and not Rs. 60/- per month, as claimed. It was further alleged that since he was in possession of the demised premises as co-owner, there was no occasion for Ramesh Chander to file ejectment petition. On the pleadings of the parties, various issues were framed.