TILAK RAJ Vs. SUDHA JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide order being assailed, dated 01.09.2015, rendered by the Appellate Authority, Rohtak, application moved by the petitioner-tenant, for framing of an additional issue i.e. "Whether there is relationship of landlord/landlady and tenant between Smt.Sudha Jain, petitioner and Tilak Raj, respondenttenant OPP", had since been dismissed.

(2.) The conclusion arrived at in this regard reads as thus:

(3.) Ex facie, there was no clear and categoric denial of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, in the written statement filed by the petitioner. All what was stated in para No.1 of the written statement is; "let the petitioner prove as the landlord and ownership of the shop." Naturally, no issue that there never existed a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, was ever claimed either by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner fails to point out whether in the examination-in-chief of the petitioner, he categorically denied the relationship of a landlord and tenant between the parties. A bare reading of the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller dated 18.03.2011 (Annexure P1), reveals that it was not even remotely urged on behalf of the plaintiff that respondent Sudha Jain was not the landlord. In fact, the whole case of the plaintiff proceeds on a premise that the respondent was his landlord but he disputed her alleged need to occupy the premises. So much so, the petitioner, in the written statement filed by him, admitted the tenancy as also that he was a tenant in the demised premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 1550/-. This is also not denied that the petitioner was inducted in the demised premises as tenant by Sh.P.C.Jain, who happened to be the husband of respondent-Sudha Jain. Even in the legal notice (Ex.P6), it was recited that since Sh.P.C.Jain had expired, but by virtue of a Will executed by him, premises in question was bequeathed in favour of respondent and, thus, she had become the landlady by operation of law. So much so, in the earlier eviction petition No.25 of 18.08.2009, filed by the respondent, pursuant to a notice issued by the Rent Controller, petitioner Tilak Raj appeared and tendered rent along with the interest as assessed by the Court, vide Ex.P8, and, thereafter, the eviction petition was withdrawn by the respondent.