SATISH CHANDER BEDI Vs. MADAN LAL SAINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS will dispose of Civil Revision No. 1737 of 1992, 1858 of 1992 and 1859 of 1992.

(2.) THESE are tenants' revision petitions directed against the order of the Rent Controller, allowing the petitions under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act.

(3.) IN brief, the facts are that respondent, Madan Lal Saini, filed ejectment petition against the petitioners under Section 13- A of the Act, seeking their ejectment from different portions in their occupation on the ground that he is a specified landlord as defined in Section 2 (hh) of the Act and is due to retire on 1. 12. 1990, and therefore, entitled to eject the tenants. The tenants-petitioners on receipts of the summons, filed affidavits seeking leave to contest the ejectment petitions on various grounds as set out therein. One of the grounds taken was that the sale-deed in favour of the landlord, on the basis of which he claimed to be owner, is a Sham and paper transaction. This allegation was made on the basis that earlier the mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the landlord were owners as per some Civil Court decree, and they have now sold the property to the landlord and that too after they had failed in their ejectment petitions, filed against the petitioners. The other main ground on which leave to contest was sought was that the accommodation in possession of the landlord in his ancestral house was sufficient for his requirement. The Rent Controller on finding that no triable issues arises from the affidavits so filed by the tenants, refused to grant leave to contest the petitions, All the three ejectment petitions were decided on the same day and in consequence thereof, ejectment orders were passed against the tenants. Now, the tenants have impugned their ejectment orders in the present revision petition.