JAGDISH SINGH Vs. BALWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under sub -section (6) of Section 15 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, (for brevity the Act), is directed against the judgment dated 11.12.2001 passed by the Appellate Authority, Ambala by upholding the order of ejectment dated 27.9.2000. The Rent Controller in this order dated 27.9.2000 had held that the tenant -petitioner was inducted as tenant in the house in the year 1971. He used to pay rent to Amar Singh and Bachan Kaur. Thereafter, he defaulted in the payment of rent. It has further been held that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the tenant -petitioner is in arrears of rent. The tenant -petitioner did not even make payment of rent in the Court after his appearance. On the ground of non -payment of rent, the tenant -petitioner was ordered to be evicted from the premises. The Rent Controller also concluded that he had jurisdiction to try the ejectment petition filed by the landlord -respondent.

(2.) ON appeal filed under sub -section (2) of Section 15 of the Act, the Appellate Authority upheld the findings of the Rent Controller holding that the landlady -respondent Bachan Kaur (now represented by respondent No. 1) was the owner of the house in dispute which earlier was owned by Amar Singh. The tenant -petitioner has raised a serious dispute with regard to the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties by claiming his own title. The Rent Controller has refused to determine the aforementioned question by observing that the question of title was required to be determined first by the Civil Court. The view of the Rent Controller in this regard has been reversed by the Appellate Authority which proceeded to hold that the Rent Controller was entitled to determine the question of title in accordance with the judgment of this Court in Diwan Chand v. Darshan Lal, 1994(2) Rent Law Reporter 142 : 1994(2) RCR(Rent) 87 (P&H). The Appellate Authority further held that the landlord -respondent has been able to prove her ownership and that the tenant - petitioner has been a tenant in the property since 1971 under her predecessor in interest. It also found that some construction was raised by the tenant - petitioner with the permission of the landlord -respondents. The plea of the tenant -petitioner which did not find favour with the Ld. Appellate Authority is that there is an agreement Ex.RW6/1 and in performance of that agreement possession of the land with some construction has been given and the same is sufficient to protect the possession of the tenant -petitioner under Section 53 -A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity the 1882 Act). The view of the Appellate Authority reads as under : -

(3.) MR . Vinod Sharma, learned counsel for the landlord -respondents has argued that Ex.AW5/1 dated 14.11.1953 is a certificate of sale issued by competent officer under the Evacuee Trust Separation Act, 1951, when the aforementioned house was purchased in the open action by S. Amar Singh S/o Sh. Lal Singh, the predecessor in interest of the landlord -respondents, for a consideration of Rs. 1530/ -. The property was purchased exclusively in the name of Amar Singh. Learned counsel has further argued that if there was an agreement between the tenant -petitioner Ex.RW 6/1 dated 21.11.1953, then he should have filed a suit for specific performance which has never been done. According to the learned counsel cogent reasons have been given by the Courts below for not reading this documents in evidence because it has not come from proper custody and therefore, it is suspicious. The learned counsel maintained that the tenant - petitioner made an effort to change the ownership in the municipal record but his application Ex.A7 was dismissed. The learned counsel has further submitted that the statements of AW 1 and AW 5 amply show that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the tenant -petitioner was a tenant under the landlord -respondents on payment of rent. Reliance has been placed on a judgment of this Court in the case of Om Parkash v. Ram Swaroop, 1984(2) RCR(Rent) 509 (P&H) : 1984(2) RLR 351, to argue that in the absence of rent note, relationship of landlord and tenant can be established by adducing oral evidence. The learned counsel further maintained that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court are extremely limited and unless it is concluded that there was no evidence, this Court can not interfere in the findings of fact. In support of his submission the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Dev Kumar v. Smt. Swaran Lata, AIR 1996 SC 510 : 1996(1) RCR(Rent) 40 (SC), Ubaiba v. Damodaran, (1995) 5 SCC 645, Ramdoss v. K. Thangavelu, 2000(1) RCR(Rent) 126 (SC) : (2000) 2 SCC 135 and Brij Mohan v. Meera Devi, (2000) 1 CCC 447 : 1999(2) RCR(Rent) 518 (P&H). He has also submitted that there was relationship of landlord and tenant and has placed reliance on various judgment namely Harbans Lal and others v. Kishan Chand, 2002(2) RLR 571, Kedar Bhatia v. Lingarkar Panduranga Rao, 1998(2) RLR 127 : 1998(1) RCR(Rent) 416 (A.P.), Diwan Chand v. Darshan Lal, (1994 -2) PLR 484 : 1994(2) RCR(Rent) 87 (P&H).