JEET KUMARI Vs. GIRDHARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of two Regular Second Appeals bearing Nos. 1242 of 1995 (Jit Kumari v. Girdhari Lal) and 1360 of 1995 (Girdhari Lal v. Jit Kumari) and Civil Revision No. 4929 of 1998 (Girdhari Lal v. Jit Kumari). The above Regular Second Appeals have arisen from civil suit No. 90 dated 07.05.1991, filed by Jit Kumari against Girdhari Lal for ejectment and for possession of house bearing No. 236 Dadu Majra Colony, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the 'disputed house') and for recovery of arrears of rent. The Civil Revision has arisen from an ejectment application No. 176 dated 27.03.1995, filed by the aforesaid Jit Kumari under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the aforesaid Girdhari Lal for his ejectment on the ground of non-payment of rent. This revision petition was ordered to be listed for hearing alongwith the aforesaid two Regular Second Appeals.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the disputed house was allotted to Girdhari Lal (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendant') by Housing Board, Chandigarh. The case of Jit Kumari (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff') is that she had purchased the disputed house from the defendant for a consideration of Rs. 35,000/- on General Power of Attorney. On 18.08.1986, the defendant executed various documents i.e. agreement of sale (Ex. P2), affidavit (Ex. P3), General Power of Attorney (Ex. P4) and Will (Ex. P5). The entire sale consideration was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant and the physical possession of the disputed house was handed over to the plaintiff. On the same day, a rent agreement was also executed between the parties, vide which the defendant had taken the disputed house on rent from the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month for a period of six months. The case of the plaintiff is that by the execution of the aforesaid agreement of sale, General Power of Attorney and affidavit etc. by the defendant, she became owner of the disputed house and thereafter she rented out the same to the defendant for a period of six months at the monthly rent of Rs. 250/-. But the defendant neither vacated the disputed house after the expiry of the period of tenancy nor paid the rent to her after September, 1986. The plaintiff further pleaded that since the defendant did not vacate the disputed house, she requested him many a times to vacate it. Thereupon, the defendant, with the intervention of the Panchayat, had agreed to vacate the disputed house vide a written agreement dated 10.09.1990. But in spite of that, he did not vacate the disputed house. Then, the plaintiff served a registered notice upon the defendant on 18.04.1991, terminating his tenancy and requesting him to hand over the vacant possession of the disputed house to her within a period of 15 days. But in spite of that, the defendant did not hand over the vacant possession of the disputed house. Then the plaintiff filed suit for ejectment of the defendant and for possession of the disputed house; and for recovery of the arrears of rent.

(3.) AFTER considering the evidence led by both the parties and hearing the arguments addressed by their respective counsel, the learned trial court found that the defendant had executed the agreement of sale (Ex. P2), affidavit (Ex. P3), General Power of Attorney (Ex. P4) and Will (Ex. P5). It has also been held that the entire sale consideration of the disputed house was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. It was also found that on the date of execution of the aforesaid documents, physical possession of the disputed house was handed over to the plaintiff. It was further held that thereafter the disputed house was rented out to the defendant vide rent agreement (Ex. P7) at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month for a period of six months. The rent agreement (Ex. P7) has also been proved to be duly executed by the defendant. The learned trial court disbelieved the story put forward by the defendant that he had taken the loan in the security thereof the aforesaid documents were got executed. It was further held that when the defendant did not vacate the disputed house after the expiry of the period of tenancy, a compromise (Ex. P1) was arrived at between the parties, in which the defendant agreed to deliver the vacant possession of the disputed house to the plaintiff on or before 10.09.1990. On the basis of the aforesaid findings of facts, the learned trial court held on issue No. 1 that the plaintiff is owner and landlady of the disputed house as the defendant, who was the original allottee thereof, had sold the same to the plaintiff by executing an agreement of sale (Ex. P2) by receiving the entire sale consideration and by handing over the physical possession of the disputed house to her. On issue No. 2, it was held that the disputed house was taken on rent by the defendant from the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month. The rent agreement (Ex. P7) was duly proved. The relationship of landlord and tenant was held to be existing between the parties. On issue No. 3, it was held that the civil suit filed by the plaintiff for ejectment of the defendant is maintainable. With these findings, the learned trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff and the defendant was ordered to be ejected and directed to hand over the vacant possession of the disputed house to the plaintiff within a period of two months. The plaintiff was also allowed the arrears of rent from May, 1988 to April, 1991 at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month. She was further allowed an amount of Rs. 10,500/- for the use and occupation of the disputed house from May, 1991 to October, 1994.