DARSHAN DEVI Vs. KAUSHALYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The broad facts leading to the filing of this petition for revision of the order of Shri Mohan Lal Jain, District Judge, Gurgaon (Appellate Authority, under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act), are not in dispute, and may first be noticed. The premises in dispute belonged to one Piara Lal and his brother. One Nathu Ram was at that time admittedly a tenant on the premises at the rate of Rs. 7/- per mensem. After the death of Piara Lal, this property came to the share of Smt. Laxmi Devi as a result of a family partition. Laxmi Devi subsequently sold the property by a registered deed of sale, dated June 27, 1966, in favour of Ram Chander. The said Ram Chander in turn transferred the rights of ownership in the property in question on October 5, 1971, in favour of the present petitioner Smt. Darshan Devi. In or about 1969 Nathu Ram died leaving behind his widow Kaushalya Devi and son Gopal, respondents 1 and 2 respectively in the present proceedings. On November 3, 1971, Darshan Devi petitioner filed an application for the ejectment of the widow and son of Nathu Ram inter alia, on the ground that they had sublet the premises to Mangat Ram respondent No. 3, and that the tenants had not paid the arrears of rent with effect from October 1, 1962, amounting to Rs. 763/-. By his judgment and order dated July 29, 1972, the Rent Controller allowed the application for ejectment on the ground of non-payment of rent. That order having been reversed and the application of the present petitioner for ejectment of the respondents having been dismissed by the above-mentioned order of the Appellate Authority, dated January 16, 1973, the landlord has come up to this Court for revision of the order of the Appellate Authority.

(2.) The only issue on which arguments were advanced before the Appellate Authority and on which again submissions have been made before me, issue No. 1, which is in the following terms :-

(3.) In the petitioner's replication, dated December 13, 1971, the preliminary objection was controverted, the original pleas of the petitioner reiterated, and it was stated that the Rent Controller could determine the question of relationship of landlord and tenant, and could even go into the incidental question of ownership of the property for deciding that matter. It was also averred that respondents 1 and 2 being the widow and son of Nathu Ram could not question the title of the landlord or their predecessor-in-interest. It was finally stated that the tenancy did not terminate on the death of Nathu Ram as it was a tenancy from month to month, which was heritable, and was in fact inherited by respondents 1 and 2.