KARTARA Vs. SUBHASH CHANDER AND OTHERS RESPONDENTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is landlord's petition whose ejectment application was allowed by the Rent Controller, dismissed in appeal.

(2.) Kartara, Amrik Singh and Balbir Singh filed the ejectment application for ejecting the tenants from the building, in dispute, situated at Goraya, contending that the said building belonged to Rattan Singh, deceased, the father of the said Amrik Singh and Balbir Singh, applicants. After the death of the said Rattan Singh, the premises, in dispute, had been allotted to Kartara, petitioner, for enjoyment of the fruits of the same during his life time only, but without any power of alienation. After the death of Rattan Singh, Amrik Singh and Balbir Singh, applicants, being his sons, had become the owners thereof on the basis of the Will. It was further averred that Balbir Singh, applicant, being in a foreign country, the petition was filed on his behalf by Amrik Singh as his general attorney. The building was rented out by Rattan Singh, deceased, at a monthly rent of Rs. 200/-. The ejectment was sought on the grounds that the tenants had changed the user of the building and were in arrears of rent from August 1, 1975. It was also pleaded that the landlords bonafide required the premises for their use and occupation. The ejectment petition was resisted denying the relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties. On the other hand, it was contended that Shrimati Vijay Sharma, respondent, was in possession of the property as the owner. It was, however, admitted that the property originally belonged to Rattan Singh, but it was claimed that he had made in Will in her favour on July 6, 1975 and that she was running the school in the said building. The learned Rent Controller found that the alleged will, Exhibit R-1, purported to have been executed by the aforesaid Rattan Singh in favour of Shrimati Vijay Sharma, was doubtful. It was further found that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties existed. Since the tenants did not tender or pay the arrears of rent, the order of ejectment was passed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority took the view that since the question of title was involved in the present case, the Rent Controller was not competent to decide the matter and thus, he had transgressed his jurisdiction under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act in deciding the question of title. No finding was given as to whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties or not. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the ejectment application was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlords have come up in revision to this court.

(3.) Admittedly, the respondents were inducted as the tenants by Rattan Singh, deceased, though initially in the written statement, it was denied. Once it is so admitted that the respondents were inducted as the tenants by Rattan Singh, then in view of the provisions of Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, the tenants could not be allowed to deny the title of the landlord. In case, they wanted to set up the alleged Will, Exhibit R. 1, the proper course for them was to prove the validity of the Will in a "Civil court and to seek their remedy in accordance with the law. It is the common case of the parties that the validity of the Will, Exhibit R. 1 could not be gone into in these proceedings. In this view of the matter, no meaningful argument could be raised on behalf of the tenant to contend that no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. Once it is so found then since the tenant did not tender the arrears of rent on the first date of hearing, they were liable to be ejected from the premises, in dispute.