OM PARKASH Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide order dated 04.10.2000, rendered by the Rent Controller, Jalandhar, the eviction petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Appeal preferred against the said order failed and was accordingly dismissed vide judgment dated 05.03.2003. This is how, the petitioner-landlord is before this court.

(2.) In an ejectment petition filed by the petitioner, he sought eviction of Bhag Mal son of Jawala Ram i.e. predecessor-in-interest of the respondent, from the demised premises i.e. ES 425, shown in red colour in the site plan, appended with the petition. It was averred that the said property was purchased by Hardial Singh son of Bela Singh in an open auction from the Rehabilitation Department and the petitioner purchased the said house from Hardial Singh vide a registered sale deed. Bhag Mal was alleged to have been inducted as a tenant in the demised premises on monthly rent of Rs. 400/- about twenty years ago. Subsequently, the rent was raised to Rs. 600/- per month. About five years prior to the filing of the eviction petition, at the instance of the respondent, the petitioner renovated the house and also provided an additional room. Accordingly, the rent was enhanced to Rs. 800/- per month. The rent was regularly paid by the respondent and consequently, the petitioner had issued receipts to the respondent. However, w.e.f. 01.01.1990, respondent failed to pay the rent and was thus in arrears @ Rs. 800/- per month. Thus, eviction was sought on account of non-payment of rent.

(3.) In defence, it was pleaded, inter alia, that neither the petitioner was the landlord nor even the owner of the demised premises. Rather, respondent claimed himself to be the owner in possession of the house in question. It was maintained that the said property was purchased by Swaran Singh Bajwa in an open auction and was subsequently sold to the respondent pursuant to an agreement dated 14.11.1990. And the respondent was put in possession. It was denied that the respondent ever paid rent to the petitioner, as there was never any relationship of landlord and a tenant between the parties.