TARLOCHAN SINGH Vs. JOGINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's revision petition filed under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for brevity 'the Act') challenging the order of the Appellate Authority, Amritsar dated 22.9.1998 dismissing his appeal and affirming the findings of fact recorded by the learned Rent Controller, Amritsar. The Rent Controller in his order dated 20.9.1988 had ordered ejectment of the tenant-petitioner on the ground of non-payment of rent, bona fide necessity as the house in dispute is required for his married son and that the tenant-petitioner has committed such acts which have materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises.

(2.) LANDLORD -respondent filed an ejectment petition being case No. 345 dated 29.9.1981 under Section 13 of the Act before the Rent Controller seeking ejectment of the tenant-petitioner wherein it was alleged that the tenant- petitioner took two rooms and kitchen on the first floor or rent from the landlord-petitioner and his brother Mohinder Singh on 1.11.1952 at a monthly rent of Rs. 15/-. The rent note to that effect was executed on 18.10.1952. Lateron property was mortgaged vide mortgage deed dated 28.4.1959 in favour of one Harsha Singh and others by the landlord-respondent and his brother Mohinder Singh. After the partition, the property in dispute fell to the share of the landlord-respondent being part of the half share of the properties. Landlord-respondent also filed suit for redemption of mortgage which was allowed on 17.10.1979. After redemption, the property in dispute vested in the landlord-respondent and the tenant-petitioner became tenant under him in respect of the property taken on rent by the tenant-petitioner in pursuance of the Rent note dated 18.10.1952. The ejectment of the tenant- petitioner was sought on the ground of non-payment of rent, bona fide necessity and material impairment of the value and utility of the demised premises.

(3.) ON issue Nos. 1 to 3, 6 and 7 findings recorded are that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the tenant- petitioner is a tenant under the landlord-respondent. It was further been held that the partition between the landlord-respondent and his brother Mohinder Singh had taken place because in the partition suit filed by the landlord-respondent against his brother, Shri M.P. Joshi Advocate was appointed as Local Commissioner whose report has been proved on record as Ex. AW7/1 alongwith certified copy of the plan Ex. AW 7/2. The parties to the partition suit namely landlord-respondent and Mohinder Singh had agreed to accept the report of the Local Commissioner and copy of the compromise has also been placed on record as Ex. AW7/3. Therefore, it is proved that the property in dispute fell to the share of the landlord-respondent. It was also proved that the tenant-petitioner was inducted as tenant in respect of two rooms and one kitchen forming part of the property in dispute vide rent note dated 18.10.1952.