KAMLA RANI Vs. INDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlady's petition in whose favour eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller but was set aside in appeal. The landlady Kamla Rani sought the ejectment of the tenant, Inder Singh, alleging that he was the tenant of one Shori Lal, son of Des Raj, who had sold the suit property to her vide registered sale deed dated 9th February, 1981 and thereafter he became her tenant. The ejectment was sought on the ground that she bonafide required the premises for her own use and occupation. In the Written Statement filed on behalf of the tenant it was denied that he was the tenant under Shori Lal. According to the tenant, he was the tenant under Kundan Lal, brother of Shori Lal, on a monthly rent of Rs. 75 and he was paying the rent to Kundan Lal regularly who was the owner of the house in dispute. Thus, the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was denied. Most of evidence was produced to prove that Shori Lal was the owner of the suit property earlier and he sold the same to the petitioner Kamla Rani vide sale deed dated 9th February, 1981, whereas, on the other hand evidence was produced to show that Shori Lal was not owner of the house in dispute and it was Kundan Lal who was the owner and the landlord of the premises in dispute. The learned Rent Controller found that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as she was the owner of the demised premises. Consequently, 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 absolutely no evidence to prove that Shori Lal ever leased out the premises in dispute to the tenant. Thus, it was held ultimately that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Consequently, eviction order was set aside. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlady has filed this petition.

(2.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the main controversy between the parties is as to who is the owner of the house in dispute, whether Kundan Lal or Shori Lal ? There is no cogent evidence on record to prove that the vendor of the landlady Shori Lal ever inducted the tenant Inder Singh on the demised premises. That being so, it has been rightly held that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties even if it be held that Kamla Rani was the owner of the house in dispute. In these circumstances, it will be for the civil court to decide as to who is the owner of the suit property, and not for the authorities under the Act to go into this matter. The findings given by the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority with regard to the ownership of the property are, therefore, set aside and will not be taken into consideration by the Civil Court while deciding the controversy between the parties. Since there was no cogent evidence to prove that Shori Lal, vendor, was the landlord, this petition is liable to fail on that short ground alone. Consequently, with the observations made above, this petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.