TARA CHAND Vs. KISHAN LAL ALIAS KISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's petition whose application for the ejectment of the respondent has been dismissed by both the authorities below.

(2.) THE landlord Tara Chand sought the ejectment of his tenant Kishan Lal from the premises in dispute which consist of a house, inter alia on the ground that the tenant was in arrears of rent with effect from 25.11.1971 and that the bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation. The ejectment application was filed on 23.7.1975. The application was contested mainly on the ground that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was further pleaded that premises were let out to them by Deva Ram, father of the petitioner, Tara Chand who had been realising rent regularly. The learned Rent Controller found that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was Deva Ram father of Tara Chand who was the landlord qua Kishan Lal tenant. The plea of the landlord that he has become the owner of the premises in dispute by virtue of Civil Court decree, was not proved and therefore, the petitioner has failed to prove that he has become owner of the demised premises, as alleged. Thus, he was neither the owner nor the landlord of the premises in dispute. The other pleas of the landlord were also negatived. Consequently, the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller and thus, maintained the order dismissing the ejectment application. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord had 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 am of the considered view that the whole approach of the authorities below was illegal and improper. From the documentary, as well as oral evidence, it has been amply proved on the record that with effect from 21.11.1971, Tara Chand had become the owner, as well as the landlord, of the premises in dispute. According to the tenant, Deva Ram father of Tara Chand, was his landlord. Deva Ram has himself appeared in the witness box and has categorically stated that by virtue of the Civil Court decree, his son Tara Chand had become owner of the premises in dispute with effect from 21.11.1971. It is true that the landlord did not produce the certified copy of the decree of Civil Court, but, in absence thereof, it could not be successfully argued on behalf of the tenant that the landlord had failed to prove that he had become the owner. As said earlier, Deva Ram has admitted that he was no more the owner of the premises in dispute. Not only that, Deva Ram has stated before the Rent Controller that even prior to the ejectment application, the tenant served a notice on him vide Ex. AW 2/2 dated 17.9.1974 and in reply thereto, Ex. AW 2/4, he categorically stated that with effect from 21.11.1971, he had ceased to be the owner of the premises in dispute. Rather his son Tara Chand has become its owner by virtue of Civil Court decree. The receipt, of this letter, dated 19.9.1974 Ex. A.W. 2/4 is admitted by the tenant. Thus, the whole approach of the authorities below in this behalf was wrong and illegal. When Deva Ram himself admitted that he was no more the owner and landlord of the premises in dispute with effect from 21.11.1971 and notice to this effect was given to the tenant prior to the filing of the ejectment application by his son Tara Chand, then there was absolutely no occasion for the authorities below to come to the conclusion that Tara Chand has failed to prove that he has become the owner, as well as the landlord, of the premises in dispute. The finding of the Courts below is against the evidence on the record.