RATI RAM Vs. TEJ PARKASH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Civil Misc. No.24703-CII-2014

(2.) The ejectment petition was filed by Parbhu Dayal deceased against the petitioner Rati Ram on the ground that he was owner of the property on the basis of registered sale deed dated 2.5.1984 and supplementary sale deed dated 2.5.1988. The judgment and decree dated 28.7.1989 in the civil suit titled "Parbhu Dayal Vs. Subhash Chand etc. was also relied to claim ownership. It was averred that the petitioner was a tenant on the monthly rent of Rs. 40/- and he not paid the rent from 16.7.2003 till filing of petition i.e. 8.12.2005. Further ground taken was that the landlord was working as Chief Yard Master, Northern Western Railways, Phulera and was going to retire on 28.2.2006 and wanted the property in question for his own use and occupation as he has no other property situated at Rewari. Apart from personal requirement, the suit property was 150 years old and in a dilapidated condition and unfit for human habitation which he wanted to reconstruct. A tin shed and toilet had also been constructed in the absence of the landlord.

(3.) On issuing notice of the rent petition, the petitioner-tenant denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and took the plea that earlier petition had been dismissed on 15.1.1988. The vendor Mathura Parshad, Ishwari and Virender Singh were not the owners of the suit property and they had no right to execute the sale deeds dated 2.5.1984 and 2.5.1988. Therefore, the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to entertain the said petition. It was further averred that the property in question was taken on rent by Jee Sukh, father of the tenant prior to 1942 from Ram Kishan son of Ram Parshad at a monthly rent of Rs. 1/- which was paid upto 1964. Thereafter, Ram Kishan left Rewari and no rent was received by him. It is alleged that petitioner-tenant has become owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession. It is further alleged that heirs of Ram Chander son of Jee Sukh, who is brother of the petitioner-tenant were not impleaded as party. Mathura Parshad and others were alleged to have no title in the suit property since they were not the legal heirs of Ram Kishan who had died issue less and the decree dated 28.7.1989 was collusive and not binding. The plea of bonafide occupation was disputed and that the rent had been paid at the rate of Rs. 1/- per month for the preceding three years. It was denied that the property was unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The alleged construction of tin shed and toilet was prior to the sale deed dated 2.5.1984 and thus, there were no material alterations.