GURDEV SINGH Vs. SARWAN SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below

(2.) GURDEV Singh sought the ejectment of the Respondents Sarwan Singh and Kirpal Singh, alleging that Sarwan Singh tock on rent one half portion of the house in dispute from the Petitioner at the rate of Rs 400/ - per month. The tenant was running the business in the name of Malwa Brothers and in the name of Jaimi Knitting Works in that premises. According to the landlord, he did not pay rent from January 1, 1970 and that he had sublet the premises to Respondent No. 2 Kirpal Singh for the last three years. Kirpal Singh denied the allegation made in the ejectment application. He stated that he never took on rent the house in dispute from the Petitioner nor had he sublet the tame to Respondent No. 2. It was stated that the Petitioner is the husband of Mst. Chhoto. They were not pulling on well because the Petitioner had taken a second wife. The agreement was executed on 28th February, 1962 between the Petitioner and his wife that she would be given Rs. 15/ - as maintenance and whole of the House No. 503/1 situated in Moh -alla Wait Ganj. House No. 503/1 was given exclusively to Mst. Chhoto for maintenance for her life. But she was not entitled to alienate the same. However, the was entitled to lease out the same. This fact was incorporated in the judgment of the Court dated 22nd April, 1966. Sarwan Singh had given up his tenancy and delivered possession of the house to Smt. Chhoto on 3rd February, 1970. Thus the main controversy between the parties was whether there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties or not. It has been concurrently found by both the Authorities below that the house in dispute was given to Mst Chhoto by the Petitioner for residence and he had no right to lease out the same to anybody else. Thus the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties did not exist during the life time of Mst Chhoto.

(3.) CONSEQUENTLY , the petition fails and is dismissed with costs.