ROSHAN LAL Vs. BALDEV RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these four Revision petitions Nos. 2519 to 2522 of 1981 under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (for short, the Act) filed by the tenant petitioners against the same landlord respondent, the common question raised relates to the relationship of the parties inter se and thus these are being disposed of through this common order. The petitioners undisputably are in occupation of four different rooms of the same building (house) which the landlord respondent claims to have purchased from one Ram Dial vide sale deed dated January 6, 1978. The present petitions were filed by him for the eviction of the petitioners one two grounds :-

(2.) In order to establish his status as landlord the respondent brought on record a document, Exhibit A. 1 (the original is in C.R. No. 2521 and the certified copies of the same have been placed on the records of other cases) whcih discloses that Ram Dial himself was a lessee of this property for fifty years from one Mahant Ram Saran Dass. Further it is disclosed by the contents of this document that Ram Dial after having partitioned his property with his brothers, had constructed six rooms on the area which fell to his share and these were the six rooms which he transferred to Baldev Raj respondent through this document. In addition to this he himself as A.W. 2 and Raj Kumar, R.W. 5. grandson of Ram Dial, have appeared in the witness box to vouchsafe about the above noted facts. On a contest having been raised by the petitioner-tenants with regard to their relationship with the respondent, the trial court went into the matter and while dismissing the applications of the respondent, came to the following conclusions.

(3.) Mr. Chawla, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently urges that the lower appellate authority has upset the above noted well merited finding on the question of relationship between the parties without any justifiable reasons. The learned counsel points out that Exhibit A. 1 has not been properly proved in as much as none of the marginal witnesses of the document has been produced. These is no evidence connecting the said document with the demised premises.