LAWS(P&H)-1984-3-71

SUBHASH SINGH Vs. HARYANA PINJRA POLE GAUSHALA ROHTAK

Decided On March 13, 1984
SUBHASH SINGH Appellant
V/S
Haryana Pinjra Pole Gaushala Rohtak Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed by the alleged tenant against Subhash Singh, petitioner, on September 2, 1974, on the allegations that he was a tenant under him on the premises, in dispute, which consisted of a house, No 586 and Nohra No. 647, situated at Kalanaur Kalan, Tehsil and District Rohtak, on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/-. He was liable to be evicted on the ground that he had failed to pay rent since August 1, 1973 and that he being a person of quarrelsome nature had become a source of nuisance to the neighbour. In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant it was pleaded that the Rent controller had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition because there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was also pleaded that Gur Parshad was neither the owner nor the landlord of the properties. It was denied that he was a tenant under him on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/-.

(2.) THUS , the main controversy between the parties before the Rent Controller was as to whether there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties or not. Admittedly, rent was paid on the first date of hearing. The learned Rent controller found that there was the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Since no rent was tendered or paid on the first date of hearing, the order of ejectment was passed against the petitioner. It may be mentioned here that during the pendency of the ejectment application, Gur Parshad, made a gift of the premises, in dispute, in favour of the Haryana Pinjra Pole Gaushala Rohtak, and so it was substituted in his place in the ejectment application. In appeal, the Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the order of eviction passed against the petitioner. Dissatisfied with the same, he has come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant evidence on the record.