JAGDISH SINGH Vs. MOHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant is in revision petition aggrieved against the order passed by the Appellate Authority under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 passing an order of ejectment on account of non-payment of arrears of rent after holding that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.

(2.) RESPONDENT Mohan Lal sought ejectment of the present petitioner on account of non-payment of rent from 1.1.1977 to 30.9.1982 at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month in addition to the house-tax. On the first date of hearing respondent- tenant tendered rent at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month w.e.f 1.6.1982 to 31.10.1992. However, in written statement, the petitioner denied the relationship of landlord and tenant alleging therein that the premises in question were let out not by Mohan Lal but by his brother Sham Lal. The rate of rent was disputed and it was alleged that in fact, it was Rs. 200/- per month.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the landlord has not disclosed either in the ejectment petition or even in the replication that the premises in dispute were let out by Sham Lal on his behalf. There is no averment in the ejectment petition regarding letting out of the premises by Sham Lal. In the replication, in spite of specific averment in the written statement that the premises were let out by Sham Lal, the landlord has denied the factum of letting out of the premises by Sham Lal. It is further contended that it is the Sham Lal who has signed sale deed, raised construction of the shop and let out the premises in dispute to the petitioner. The petitioner never disclosed that Sham Lal is not the owner/landlord and therefore, there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between Mohan Lal and the present petitioner. It is further contended that the landlord has claimed monthly rent at Rs. 300/- per month, whereas the finding of both the courts below is that the monthly rent was Rs. 220/-. Since the landlord has not been believed on the question of rate of rent, he should not be believed in respect of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.