MEGH SINGH Vs. JUGAL KISHORE AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant's revision under sub-section (5) of section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (3 of 1949), challenging the order passed by the Appellate Authority setting aside the order of the Rent Controller and directing the ejectment of the tenant on the grounds of non-payment of rent and subletting.

(2.) Mr. Ram Rang, the learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner, has argued the revision at a great length and has also taken me through the relevant evidence. The landlord came to the Court on the allegation that Megh Singh petitioner before me was his tenant for the last several years at a rent of Rs. 26/- per mensem in the ground-floor of the house in dispute; that the tenant had not paid any rent and was in arrears; that he had inducted one Nanu Ram in two out of the four rooms with him as a sub-tenant and that the house was also required by him for the occupation of his married son, because the accommodation with him in the house in which he was living was not sufficient.

(3.) Both Megh Singh and Nanu Ram were impleaded as respondents in the application for ejectment and they put in separate written statements. Megh Singh took up the plea that he was not a tenant under the landlord; that, in fact, he was in possession of the premises in his own right and had acquired a title by adverse possession and that Nanu Ram was living in the house in his own right as a tenant under the landlord. Nanu Ram also took up the same plea that he was a tenant under the landlord at the rate of Rs. 4/- per month and, along with the written statement, he tendered rent for certain period at the rate of Rs. 4/- per month. When these pleas were taken, a replication was filed by the landlord. He also produced separately a rent-note executed in the year 1941 which has ultimately been marked as Exhibit P-1.