INDER LAL BATRA Vs. HORI LAL

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) THE landlord sought the ejectment of the tenant from the residential premises bearing No. 4948/4, Mohalla Palledaran, Ambala Cantt, which was occupied by him on a monthly rent of Rs. 65/- besides the water-tax. The grounds of ejectment were non-payment of rent from July 1, 1978 to July 31, 1981 and the water-tax amounting to Rs. 117/- and that the landlord bonafide required the premises, in question, for his own use and occupation as he had since been transferred from Chandigarh to Ambala. It was stated that he was living with his father, but the accommodation there was inadequate to house his large family. In the written statement, the plea taken by the tenant was that he was a tenant in the premises, in question, on payment of Rs. 65/- per month as rent, but he had taken the house on rent from Bansi Lal and not from Inder Lal Batra, his son. It was also claimed that he was paying rent to Bansi Lal, but no receipt was issued to him. According to him, the rent stood paid up to July, 1981. On that account, no rent was tendered on the first date of hearing. The tenant also refuted the other grounds set up by the landlord for his ejectment. On trial, the learned Rent Controller found that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that the tenant was liable to the ejected on the ground of non-payment of rent. The plea of the bonafide requirement of the landlord was negatived. In view of the finding that the tenant was in arrears of rent, the eviction order was passed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority maintained the findings of the Rent, Controller as to the relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties as well as the one negativing the plea of the bonafide requirement of the landlord. However, the finding on the question of arrears of rent was reversed. According to the Appellate Authority, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the rent would be deemed to have been paid to the father of the landlord for the relevant period. In view of this finding, the eviction order was set aside. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord has filed this revision petition in this Court.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the relevant evidence on the record, I find force in the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner.