VIDHYA SAGAR SAYAL Vs. TARA CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petition is directed against the order of reversal recorded by the Additional District Judge, Patiala (I), dated July 20, 1979 (presumably acting as an Appellate Authority under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act). As per this order, the lower Appellate Authority accepted the appeal of Tara Chand tenant against the decision of the Rent Controller, Patiala, ordering eviction of the respondent from a house in consequence of an application for ejectment filed by Vidhya Sagar petitioner-landlord under section 13 of the Act.

(2.) THE petitioner-landlord filed an application for the ejectment of the respondent from the demised premises which is residential house taken by the respondent on rent at Rs. 40/- per month by means of Rent Note Exhibit A1. The landlord claimed eviction of the tenant on the ground that he had been relieved of his service and was now residing at Amritsar in a rented house. He required the premises in dispute for his personal use and occupation. The ejectment application was contested by the respondent on two grounds, namely (a) that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and (b) that the house was not required bonafide by the petitioner for his own use and occupation. These points were incorporated in two issues framed by the Rent Controller. After recording the evidence of the parties and considering the material placed on the record by them, the Rent Controller decided both the issues in favour of the petitioner-landlord and consequently directed eviction of the respondent from the disputed premises. The respondent-tenant then went up in appeal which was accepted and the order of eviction was set aside. The present is a Revision Petition against the order of the lower Appellate Authority.

(3.) CERTAIN features of the order passed by the lower Appellate Authority will have to be noticed in order to appreciate the grievance made by the petitioner. The lower Appellate Authority has observed in the first place that there was no mention of the name of the landlord/owner in the Rent Note Exhibit A1 and from this circumstance it has been concluded that the petitioner is not the owner of the property in dispute. The authority, however, appears to have completely ignored the evidence on the record. In his statement made before the Rent Controller, the petitioner-landlord made a categorical averment that he was in the service with effect from 1952 and that he was the owner of the premises in dispute which had been rented out to the respondent by the brother of the petitioner by means of Rent Note Exhibit A1. The petitioner further stated that after leaving his service he had been living at Amritsar in a rented house and he was desirous of shifting to his own house, i.e., the premises in dispute. In this cross-examination, there is not an iota of evidence or even a suggestion that the petitioner was not the owner of the house in dispute. Apart from the evidence of the petitioner-landlord, there is the statement of his brother Ishwar Chand who appeared as AW1 to depose that it was the petitioner who was the owner of the property and that the same was rented out to the respondent vide Rent Note Exhibit A1. The evidence produced by the petitioner regarding the owner ship of demised premises was not rebutted by the respondent who rest content by concentrating in proving the fact that the petitioner had a share of 50% in some business at Amritsar. This fact even if proved would not rebut the claim of the petitioner about the ownership of the disputed premises. The lower Appellate Authority has clearly gone wrong in dealing with this aspect of the matter and holding that the petitioner was not proved to be the owner of the premises. This finding of the lower Appellate Authority is reversed and that of the Rent Controller is affirmed.