SMT. KAUSHALYA DEVI AND ANOTHER Vs. SHAM SUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is landlord's petition in whose ejectment application, eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller, but the same was set aside in appeal.

(2.) Smt. Kaushalya Devi and Mohinder Kumar, her son, claiming themselves to be the landlords, sought the ejectment of their tenant, Sham Sunder, from the premises in dispute, consisting of 2-1/2 storey of the building. It was pleaded that Jagdish Parshad, the original owner, inducted tenant Sham Sunder at the rent of Rs. 150 per month. The tenant was in arrears of rent with effect from April 1968. It was also pleaded that the landlords required the premises for their own use and occupation. The application was filed on 30th June, 1983. In the written statement, Sham Sunder, alleged tenant, pleaded that the entire 2-1/2 storey building was rented to the firm M/s Ram Partap Dawarka Dass which was later on known as Ram Partap Krishan Parkash at a monthly rent of Rs. 80 per month. He was employed as Munshi by this firm and with the consent of his proprietor he was living in one room on the second storey of the demised building. Jagdish Parshad never inducted him as tenant in the demised building. In these circumstances, the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was denied.

(3.) The learned Rent Controller found that there was relationship of landlords and tenant between the parties and since no arrears of rent were tendered on the first date of hearing, eviction order was passed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that there was no relationship of the landlord and the tenant between the parties qua the demised building. It was found as a fact that the whole building consisting of 2-1/2 storey was one tenancy unit and it was under the occupation of the firm M/s Ram Partap Krishan Parkash. Sham Sunder was in occupation of the portion of the said premises, being in the employment of the said firm. In view of this finding, ejectment application was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the same the landlords have filed this petition in this court.