LUXMI DEVI Vs. RAVINDER KUMAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is preferred by the petitioner-Luxmi Devi, who was tenant before the learned Rent Controller against the order dated 15.02.2012 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Malerkotla vide which the ejectment petition filed for evicting the respondent (tenant) from the demised shop was accepted and the judgment dated 11.11.2014 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Sangrur vide which the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein (tenant) against the aforesaid order dated 15.02.2012 of learned Rent Controller was dismissed.

(2.) The case of respondent No. 1 herein who was petitioner before the learned Rent Controller in brief was that Des Raj and others residents of Ahmedgarh, Tehsil Malerkotla were originally the owners/landlords of the demised shop. Mam Raj (since deceased) resident of Ahmedgarh took the demised shop on rent from aforesaid Des Raj and others on 01.01.1989 for a period of one year at the rate of Rs. 20/- per month vide a rent note. After getting the shop on rent said Mam Raj started the business of selling vegetables in it. The rent was later on mutually enhanced from Rs. 20 to Rs. 25 per month. The said Mam Raj, original tenant had expired on 23.10.1993 and after his death respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who were his widow and daughter respectively inherited the tenancy rights, who occupied the demised shop being legal heirs of said Mam Raj. In a family settlement dated 07.04.1996, the demised shop fell to the share of respondent No. 1 herein (landlord) Ravinder Kumar and since then he is the owner/landlord of this shop. Petitioner herein (tenant) alongwith respondent No. 2 herein as such became tenant under him in the demised shop, hence there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties qua demised shop.

(3.) On receipt of notice, petitioner herein (tenant) put her appearance in the Court and in her written statement she had denied that Desraj etc. were originally the owners/landlords of the demised shop. But in this regard it was admitted by her that Mam Raj, her husband and father of respondent No. 2 was the tenant in the demised shop who took the same on rent about 40 years back from Des Raj. Then it was also admitted that original tenant Mam Raj had expired and after his death, the tenancy rights were inherited by petitioner (tenant) and respondent No. 2 herein. Respondent No. 2 is stated to be married and residing in her in-laws house. Since there was no male member to support petitioner herein (tenant), so she was selling vegetables in the demised shop in order to earn her livelihood after death of her husband. It was denied that demised shop had come to the share of Ravinder Kumar in a family settlement. The rent note as well as family settlement as alleged by the respondent No. 1 herein (landlord) were stated to be forged and invalid documents and not admissible in evidence. It was specifically pleaded that respondent No. 1 herein is neither the owner/landlord of the demised shop nor petitioner and respondent No. 2 herein were tenants under him. Relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties qua the demised shop was also denied. Then it was also denied that respondent No. 1 herein (landlord) required the demised premises to run his business in it. Rest of the averments were also denied.