KAILASH WATI Vs. BADRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner before this Court for reasons of convenience is being described as the petitioner-landlady. She claims to be the owner of the land in question. She filed an ejectment application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, wherein she sought ejectment of the respondent/tenant-Badri on two counts. Firstly, non-payment of rent for the period from 1.1.1978 to 17.10.1981. And secondly, that the petitioner requires the plot in question for her won use and occupation. It would be pertinent to mention that the respondent/tenant opposed the ejectment application by adopting the stance that he himself was the owner of the plot in question and further that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.

(2.) THE Rent Controller by his order dated 21.4.1985, (while deciding Issue No. 2), arrived at a conclusion that there was a subsisting relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Having arrived at the aforesaid conclusion, the Rent Controller ordered the ejectment of the respondent/tenant-Badri by concluding that the tenant had not paid arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.1.1978 to 17.10.1981 and also on account of the fact that the premises was required by the petitioner/landlord for her own use and occupation.

(3.) IN the absence of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I have perused the order of the Appellate Authority dated 10.6.1985. While adjudicating upon issue No. 2, the Appellate Authority has arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner/landlady-Kailash Wati could not establish her ownership vis-a-vis the land in question. In order to establish her ownership right, the petitioner/landlady-Kailash Wati had produced a photocopy of a sale deed. In order to establish due execution of the sale deed, she had produced Hari Chand the alleged scribe of the sale deed as AW2 before the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller accepted the aforesaid evidence produced by the petitioner/landlady as sufficient to establish due execution of the sale deed. The Rent Controller, therefore, concluded that there was a subsisting relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Since no other evidence was produced before the Rent Controller on the issue of ownership other than the statement of petitioner/landlady herself as AW1 and Hari Chand as AW2, it is obvious that none of the witnesses to the sale document has authenticated and/or confirmed due execution of the sale deed. Therefore, it is not possible for me to accept that the sale deed relied upon by the landlady can be accepted to have been duly proved on the basis of evidence recorded at the behest of the petitioner. In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in the conclusion drawn by the Appellate Authority on the issue of ownership of the petitioner/landlady vis-a-vis the land in question.