HARJAS RAI Vs. HARI SAROOP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition arises out of an ejectment petition under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) filed by respondent-landlords thereinafter referred to as the Landlords) against the tenant-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the tenant. The ejectment was, inter alia, sought on the grounds of non-payment of rent and utility of the building having been diminished by the tenant.

(2.) The tenant resisted the application, inter alia, with the plea that he himself was the owner of the premises in question and there was no relationship of tenant and landlord between him and the alleged landlords. The Rent Controller allowed the application and ordered his eviction. The appellate authority sustaining the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller, found issue No. 1, which was the only issue that was agitated before it, against the tenant. Issue No. 1 is to the following effect :

(3.) Mr. S.C. Kapur, learned counsel for the tenant, has assailed the judgments of both the Courts below on the ground that these stand vitiated on account of their having relied, for their finding under issue No. 1, on the documentary evidence which is inadmissible in law. Elaborating his submission, the learned counsel, in the first instance, referred to the rent note Exhibit A-5 on which the landlords apparently seem to have based his case against the tenant for establishment of the relationship of landlords and tenant between them. Mr. Kapur contends that the lease of immovable property, in view of section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, could be effected either by way of a registered lease-deed or by an oral agreement. For the above submission, he drew sustenance from Mt. Malan V. Deyal Singh, 1939 AIR(Lah) 162and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority V. Smt Satyawati Sood and others, 1972 AIR(Del) 171 Mr. S. P. Jain, learned counsel for the landlords, on the contrary has urged that it is no doubt true that in the application there is a mention that the premises were given on rent and a rent note was executed on 8th June, 1958 between the parties, but a perusal of the rent note itself would reveal, contends the learned counsel, that the premises were already in possession of the tenant and so it cannot be said that, for the first time, the premises were leased to the tenant on the basis of the rent note Exhibit A-5.