SANTA SINGH Vs. RAJMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed by the revision petitioner Santa Singh (now dead and represented through legal representatives) challenging the order dtd. 23/9/2009 passed in Rent Appeal No.10 of 2008 titled as Santa Singh v Raj Mal whereby the learned Appellate Authority, Jalandhar while affirming the order dtd. 31/1/2008 passed by learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar, had allowed the petition filed by the landlord Raj Mal who too is now dead and represented by Legal representatives.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to hereinafter as per their original nomenclature before learned Rent Controller i.e. the revision-petitioner Santa Singh shall be referred to as respondent whereas the present respondents shall be referred to as legal representatives of petitioner Raj Mal.

(3.) The petitioner Raj Mal had filed petition under Sec. 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (for short 'the Act') seeking ejectment of respondent Santa Singh from the shop mentioned in detail in the head note of the petition (hereinafter to be mentioned as 'demised shop') on the ground that the respondent was in arrears of rent since 1/11/1992 till 16/7/1996 i.e. till the date of filing of the petition payable @Rs.800.00 per month. The respondent-Santa Singh had appeared and filed written statement denying the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was alleged by him that infact it was one Raj Kumar son of Tek Chand resident of Jalandhar who was owner-cum-landlord of the demised shop. The demised shop had been constructed by the respondent at his own expenses. On being allured by the petitioner that the latter and respondent would be in a position to denounce the relationship of landlord and tenant between owner Raj Kumar and himself, if the respondent made an erroneous admission qua his being tenant of Raj Mal and not of Raj Kumar and on assurance that he would be benefitted appropriately, the respondent had filed a civil suit titled as Santa Singh vs. Raj Mal wherein he suffered admission of his being a tenant under the petitioner Raj Mal. Subsequently, Raj Mal turned dishonest and refused to extend any benefit to him and then the respondent had withdrawn his suit. It was denied that he was in arrears of rent of the demised shop. It was asserted that the petitioner had no right to ask for payment of rent as he was neither owner nor landlord of the demised shop. Dismissal of the petition accordingly asked for.