PREM NATH Vs. AMAR NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenants-petitioners have filed this revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority. Ludhiana, dated January 6, 1979, whereby the order of the Rent Controller dismissing the ejectment application was set aside and the order of ejectment was passed against them.

(2.) Amar Nath, landlord-respondent, filed an ejectment application against the petitioners from the house, in dispute, bearing No. P-1/296/4(new) situated in Mohalla Guru Nanakpura, Civil Line, Ludhiana. It was alleged therein that earlier the said house was owned and possessed by Lal Singh, son of Jewan Singh. Under the said Lal Singh, this house was tenanted by three persons. The petitioners were tenants on a monthly rent of Rs. 135 per month in three rooms and a verandah out of which Ram Pal, tenant, occupied two rooms and the verandah whereas Prem Nath, tenant, occupied one room, marked A in the site plan. The third tenant, Shrimati Satya Vati, occupied another room shown in the yellow colour in the site plan. Later on, the said Lal Singh sold the house, in dispute, for Rs. 14,000 in favour of the landlord-respondent vide registered sale deed dated July 4, 1974. Thus, by operation of law, the said tenants became the tenants under Amar Nath, respondent. Even the said Lal Singh issued notices to the tenants to pay the rent, in future, i.e., from July 4,1974 onwards to Amar Nath, respondent. Prior to the filing of the ejectment application, the petitioners were also served with notice under section 106, Transfer of Property Act, to which, they never replied. Their ejectment was sought by the respondent inter alia on the ground of non- payment of the arrears of rent and the bona fide requirement of the landlord for his personal use and occupation. A joint written statement was filed on behalf of both the tenants wherein it was pleaded that the said Lal Singh never owned and possessed the house, in dispute, nor they were the tenants under him on the monthly rent of Rs. 135 per month, as alleged. According to them, they occupied the house, in dispute, as the owners and not as the tenants ; the Punjab Government was the owner of the land under the house, in question, and they had built this house with their own efforts ; they were in occupation thereof since long and that the premises in their occupation bore Khasra No. 2289/1837/858, which belonged to the Custodian and, thus, Amar Nath, or his predecessor-in-interest Lal Singh or Puran Singh from whom Lal Singh is alleged to have purchased the premises, in dispute, never sold the said Khasra No. It appears that the property sold to Puran Singh bore Khasra No. 2292/1837/858, 2291/1837/858, 2290/ 1837/ 858. Therefore, the property, in dispute, was quite distinct. In any case, the property number in the sale deed of the alleged landlord was incorrect and not binding on them. In the replication filed on behalf of the respondent, the allegations of the tenants were denied and the allegations made in the ejectment application was reiterated. Under these circumstances, the question of non-payment of the alleged arrears of rent did not arise and, therefore, no arrears thereof were paid on the first date of hearning. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues :

(3.) The landlord produced the sale deed in his favour and the other documentary evidence to prove his title to the property, in dispute. Lal Singh, the previous owner, appeared as A.W. 2, who proved his title to the property, in question, and the site deed in his favour by Puran Singh, who also appeared as A. W. 3. He categorically stated that there were tenants under him in the house, in dispute. The petitioners were tenants under him on a monthly rent of Rs. 135 whereas the third tenant was Shrimati Satya Vati. Nothing was brought out in his cross-examination so as to doubt his veracity. Similarly, Shrimati Satya Vati the third tenant, said to be a relation of the petitioners, also appeared as A. W. 1, who clearly stated that the petitioners mere the tenants on the Premises under Lal Singh, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent. However, the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had failed to establish the relationship of landlord and senant between the parties. What weighed with the Rent Controller was that in the replication the landlord had taken the definite stand that prior to these tenants there were some other tenants on the premises, in dispute, under the said Lal Singh. If that was so, according to the Rent Controller then it was very easy for the landlord to have produced those persons. He further observed that what to talk of producing those persons, even their names have not been disclosed to the Court. Needless to say that if there were any tenants on the premises, in dispute, prior to the present tenants, then those could very well be produced in Court." In appeal, the Appellate Authority has reversed the finding of the Rent Controller and has come to the conclusion that in view of all the circumstances of the case, the only deducible inference that can be drawn is that Amar Nath, landlord, was the owner of the house, in dispute, and after its purchase, by operation of law, became the landlord qua the respondents (now petitioners) who were living therein earlier to April 7, 1974, as tenants, under Lal Singh, the previous owner. The relationship of landlord and tenant stood established between the parties. As a result of this finding, the eviction order was passed against the petitioners. Dissatisfied with the same, they have come up in revision to this Court.