KRISHAN LAL Vs. YASIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant is in revision before this court against the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and of the appellate Court directing eviction on the ground of non -payment of rent. The petitioner's contention was that the property was rented out to the tenant about 7/8 years prior to the filing of the petition. The landlord tendered his own evidence and relied on a jamabandi for the year 1991 to explain that for the year 1984 -85, he was shown to be in possession of 2 kanals 2 marlas of land. One of the witnesses as P.W. 1 spoke about the fact that the rent had been paid in his presence 2 or 3 times, but in the cross -examination, he had admitted that he did not remember whether the rent of Rs. 350/ - was paid 6 months or 8 months or 12 months earlier.

(2.) THE tenant sought to contend that he had never taken the property on rent from the person claiming to be a landlord but he had taken the property from the Wakf Board. He also sought to contend that the person claiming to be the landlord had no right at all in the property and that his own suit for possession under Ex. P3 -a document which the landlord himself was relying on showed that his suit had been dismissed and yet another suit instituted by him on 14.01.1985 against one Prem was also dismissed. The court rejected the defence and relied on the documentary evidence of entry in the jamabandi and the evidence of the witness regarding the payment of rent by the tenant as establishing the tenancy and ordered eviction. The appellate Court also made reference to an action taken by the Notified Area Committee against the landlord when by a decision dated 07.10.1993, the landlord's possession was allowed to be continued till an appropriate action for ejectment was taken against the landlord. It is against these decisions that the tenant has preferred this revision.

(3.) I must hold that if the case hinges on an issue of oral tenancy and the landlord was trying to establish such an oral arrangement by the fact that in the jamabandi immediately prior to the institution of the petition, he was shown to have in possession and in yet another judicial proceeding initiated by the Notified Area Committee, the landlord's possession was seen, I would not look for any further evidence of whether the landlord could establish his possession or show his title against the Wakf Board or the erstwhile Maharaja of Faridkot. The issue of title or ownership is alien to proceedings except in situations where there is a denial of title and the documentary evidence to such denial are examined only to assess if an eviction could be passed on such a ground in certain legislations which allow for eviction for denial of title which is not bona fide. In all other situations, the most crucial aspect is the issue of jural relationship of the landlord and tenant. P.W. 1's evidence cannot be dissected in an artificial way of his recall of a few months earlier as an occasions when he knew the rents were paid as meaning that the rent was paid only subsequent to the petition. If a person says that he knew the rent as having been paid in his presence and in the cross -examination, he responded to queries that the rent should have been 3 month, 6 month or 9 month before it will be wrong to make an inference that he was alluding to the period of 3, 6 or 9 months as the period before his evidence. I will discard such an argument and take what the two courts below have concurrently found that the tenancy had been established and the plea of the landlord as regards the tenancy must be upheld.