RAJINDER Vs. GOPAL DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision is directed against the orders of the authorities below dismissing the ejectment petition filed by the petitioners.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of are that one Chand Kaur was the owner/landlady of the property in dispute. Gopal Dass (Respondent herein) was tenant under Chand Kaur who died in 1960 leaving behind two sons Jamna Dass and Sita Ram. Jamna Dass predeceased Chand Kaur. Gian Wati was the widow of Jamna Dass and Rajinder is daughter. The dispute arose with regard to title of the property between the heirs of Chand Kaur, namely, Gian Wati and Rajinder Kaur, on one hand and Sita Ram on the other hand. Partition suit was filed in 196 and final decree was passed on 10.6.1974. In terms of the judgment and decree of the partition suit property in dispute had fallen to the share of Gian Wati and Rajinder, her daughter. Gian Wati is stated to have executed Will dated 2.2.1976 in favour of Deepak son of Smt. Rajinder. Gian Wati died in October, 1976. On 21.8.1979, ejectment petition was filed by Deepak as well as Rajinder claiming themselves to be the owners of the property. It was also claimed that Gopal Dass had become tenant under them and is liable to be ejected on the ground that he has not paid rent with effect from 8.1.1962 to 8.7.1979. Petition was contested by the tenant who denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. Validity of Will was also challenged. It was also claimed that the petitioners had not become the owners by virtue of the partition decree. The Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment petition as the partition decree had not been filed before the Rent Controller and, therefore, it was held that the petitioners had failed to prove that they have become owners by virtue of partition decree. Will was also held to be not valid as the Rent Controller held that there are suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will. With regard to arrears of rent, it was held that the petitioners had failed to prove that any rent was due. Petitioners filed appeal before the first Appellate Court. Along with the appeal, they also filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27, Civil Procedure Code to bring on record certified copy of the decree sheet. The appeal was dismissed. Application was dismissed vide separate order in which it was held that the petitioners cannot be allowed to lead evidence as it will amount to filling in the lacuna. On dismissal of the appeal the present civil revision has been preferred by the petitioners.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. Roshan Lal Sharma, Advocate states that even if these documents are taken into consideration, even then the ejectment petition is liable to be dismissed as the petitioners have failed to prove that any arrears of rent was due.