RAM LAL Vs. GURBAKSH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenants revision petition against whom ejectment application of the landlord was dismissed by the Rent Controller but was allowed in appeal by the Appellate Authority, Jullundur.

(2.) GURBAX Singh, landlord filed ejectment application on 5.6.1978 for the eviction of his tenant, Ram Lal from the house in dispute, alleging that he was the owner of the premises and portion of it was given on rent to Ram Lal on 1.3.1970, at monthly rent of Rs. 25/- for a period of one year. It was further alleged that the tenant had failed to pay rent since October, 1975 and that he had also decreased the value and utility of the house by installing a hand-pump. It was also pleaded that the landlord bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation. The application was resisted by Ram Lal tenant mainly on the ground that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was specifically denied that Gurbax Singh was the owner of the house in dispute. According to the tenant, the house belonged to Darshan Singh son of Gurbax Singh and was taken on rent from him in the year 1959. It was further pleaded that the landlord Gurbax Singh, being father of the aforesaid Darshan Singh, had been receiving rent of the tenancy premises on behalf of Darshan Singh. According to the tenant, Gurbax Singh was not entitled to recover arrears of rent and the house was not required by him for his own use and occupation. Admittedly, no rent was tendered on the first date of hearing, as is evident from the order dated 21.8.1975, as it was stated on behalf of the tenant that he did not want to tender rent, because applicant Gurbax Singh was not his landlord. However, the learned Rent Controller found that there existed no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. In view of the said findings, the other issues were not decided and no finding, as such, was given. Consequently, the application was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the said findings of the Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that Gurbax Singh was the owner of the premises in dispute and was thus entitled to receive the rent from the tenant Ram Lal. It was further found that the landlord bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation, as he did not possess any other house at Banga, and also was not in possession of any such building after the coming into force of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. As a result of these findings, the eviction order was passed. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenant has filed this revision petition in this Court.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the landlord contended that from the documentary evidence on the record, it has been amply proved that Gurbax Singh was the owner of the demised premises, as he purchased the same vide sale deed Ex.A14 dated 26.2.1954 and thus, was entitled to receive the Rent. In support of his contention, he referred to Smt. Ram Piari v. M/s Delhi Fruit Co. etc, 1980 (1) RCR 512 : 1980 CLJ 141. As regards the bonafide requirement, it was submitted that though no finding was given by the Rent Controller, but the Appellate Authority has rightly come to the conclusion that the landlord bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation. In any case, argued the learned counsel, admittedly no rent was tendered on the first date of hearing, whereas arrears of rent where claimed in the eviction application from October, 1975 and therefore, the tenant was liable for ejectment on that ground alone.