RAVINDER SINGH Vs. BHAGWANT RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAVINDER Singh and Gurjit Singh, sons of Karam Singh, have filed the instant revision petition against the order passed by the Appellate Authority, Hoshiarpur, vide which the order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller in their favour was set aside and their ejectment application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') filed against the respondent- tenant was dismissed.

(2.) THE respondent-Bhagwant Rai was inducted as a tenant on the premises in question which consists of two rooms, two kitchens and one bathroom on the ground floor at the rate of Rs. 65/- per month, by Karam Singh, father of the petitioners. The said Karam Singh was having six sons. In the year 1981, he partitioned his property, of which the demised premises is a part, among his six sons, by a collusive decree dated 19.8.1981 (Ex. A2). According to the said collusive decree, the portion marked as 'GBEL' in the site plan (Ex. A1) fall in the share of the petitioners-Ravinder Singh and Gurjit Singh and the portion marked as 'AGLE' in the aforesaid site plan was given to Mukhtiar Singh, Dilbagh Singh and Manmohan Singh, the other brothers of the petitioners. On the basis of the aforesaid collusive decree and family partition, the petitioners claimed to have become owners/landlord of the premises in question which was rented out to the respondent-Bhagwant Rai by their father Karam Singh.

(3.) THE respondent-tenant contested the aforesaid ejectment application filed by the petitioners on various grounds, including that the aforesaid collusive decree was suffered by the father of the petitioners with a mala fide object to evict the tenant froom the premises in question. The said collusive decree does not confer any title or right of ownership/landlordship on the petitioners. It was also urged that the petitioners did not require the premises in question for their personal necessity nor actually there existed any personal necessity with the petitioners as they are already living in the ancestral house with their father, where the accommodation is more than sufficient. The arrears of rent, as claimed, were tendered by the tenant on the first date of hearing.