ROSHAN LAL Vs. REHMAT ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Roshan Lal-petitioner, who is the landlord has filed the instant revision petition against the order passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ambala, exercising the powers of the Appellate Authority under the provisions of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), vide which the ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller against the respondent-tenant was set aside and the ejectment application filed by the petitioner-landlord was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner could have established the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-landlord (for short, 'the landlord') filed the ejectment application against the respondent-tenant (for short, 'the tenant') under Section 13 of the Act for his ejectment from the demised premises inter-alia on the grounds of non-payment of rent and personal necessity. It was alleged that the house in question was let out to the tenant at monthly rent of Rs. 50/- plus house tax in the year 1976. The tenant has not paid the rent from 1.3.1979 to 28.2.1982. It was also alleged that the house in question is required for his personal necessity as he has retired from the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Madhya Pradesh about two years back. It was further alleged that he has. no other residential accommodation in the municipal limits of Yamuna Nagar. In spite of his asking, the tenant did not vacate the premises. Therefore, he filed the ejectment application on the aforesaid grounds.

(3.) Pursuant to the notice, the tenant appeared and contested the aforesaid ejectment application. He pleaded that neither the petitioner is his landlord nor he has taken the demised premises on rent from him. He alleged that no relationship of landlord and tenant exist between the parties. He further alleged that he is in possession of the demised premises for the last 14 years without any interruption from any person and in this-way, he is the sole owner of the demised premises and is not liable to pay any amount of rent to the landlord.