KARTAR KAUR Vs. SUKHDEV SINGH SANDHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Kartar Kaur filed a petition under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the ejectment of Sukhdev Singh tenant, on the ground of non-payment of rent and personal necessity. Since tender was made on the first date of hearing, therefore, ground of ejectment on non-payment of rent disappeared. The tenant denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. After evidence was led on the issues originally framed and the additional issue, the Rent Controller found that the landlord needed the premises for her residence and passed an order of ejectment. The tenant went up in appeal. Before the Appellate Authority, it was urged that the Rent Controller failed to decide the issue "whether the relationship of landlord and tenant subsisted between the parties or not" Since the Rent Controller had not decided that issue, report was called from the Rent Controller and it was reported that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not subsist. The report was accepted by the Appellate Authority. However, the Appellate Authority upheld the finding of the Rent Controller that the landlord needed the premises for her personal necessity. Since the relationship of landlord and tenant were not established, the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and the order of ejectment was set aside vide order dated 14-11-1981. This is landlord's revision petition.

(2.) No reasonable argument has been raised before me to upset the concurrent findings of both the Courts below on the ground of personal necessity of the landlord. Moreover, on a reading of the judgment of the Rent Controller, I find that the finding is well based, which finding was accepted by the Appellate Authority and a reading of the judgment of the Appellate Authority shows that this matter was not seriously agitated by the tenant. Accordingly, it is held that the landlord needed the premises for her personal residence. However, this finding will not help the landlord unless it is established that relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is proved. Accordingly, I proceed to decide that matter.

(3.) The Appellate Authority on the preponderance of evidence has concluded as follows: