BEHARI LAL Vs. PURAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly the facts are that the petitioners filed an ejectment application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the respondent from the house in dispute, on the ground that the respondent failed to pay the arrears of rent and that the petitioners required the house for personal necessity. The respondent contested the petition, controverted the allegations of the petitioners. He also denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The Rent Controller after recording evidence came to the conclusion that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that the petitioners required the house bonafide for their use and occupation. He, therefore, accepted the application. The respondent went up in appeal before the Appellate Authority against the order of the Rent Controller. At the time of hearing of the appeal the petitioners, on the basis of an undertaking given by the respondent to vacate the house within a period of one and a half years, granted him that much time to vacate it. Consequently, the appeal of the respondent was dismissed as withdrawn.

(2.) It is further averred by the petitioners that the period of one and a half years expired on 17th May, 1983 but in spite of the undertaking the respondent did not vacate the house and hand over its possession to the petitioners. On 30th May, 1983, it is alleged, a suit was filed by Smt. Goma Devi and Khushi Ram, brother of the respondent for a declaration that they along with the respondent were in occupation of the house in equal shares and the order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller and the order of the Appellate Authority was illegal, void and ineffective. Consequently they also sought relief of injunction. The suit was contested by the petitioners in which they specifically pleaded that it was the respondent who was tenant under them and he executed a rent note dated 5th August, 1970 in favour of the original owner Amar Nath from whom they had purchased the house. During the pendency of the suit the trial Court granted an ad interim injunction restraining the petitioners to eject the plaintiffs in that case in execution of the order passed by the Rent Controller. An appeal by the petitioners against that order was accepted by the Appellate Court and the ad interim injunction was vacated. It is further stated that the respondents, after giving an undertaking to the Court, flouted its orders and, therefore, they are guilty of the contempt of the Court. They have consequently prayed that an appropriate action be taken against them.

(3.) The respondent contested the petition and inter alia pleaded that his mother Goma Devi and brother Khushi Ram were in occupation of the house and he (respondent) was not in its occupation. He had vacated the same and was living in another rented premises. He further stated that his mother and brother had filed a suit for declaration in the Court of the Additional Senior Subordinate Judge who had also granted ad interim injunction order in their favour. He also controverted other allegations of the petitioner.