KULDIP SINGH Vs. PARKASH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The premises bearing No. B-I-S-IX-392 New Nazhar Hussain Road, Civil Lines, Ludhiana was evacuee property. It was purchased by Sujan Singh, father of the petitioner, The premises excluding 3 shops was in occupation of Parkash Chand (now deceased) predecessor-in-interest of the respondents as a tenant under Sujan Singh. Sujan Singh made an oral partition of his property amongst his sons and a memo of partition dated Dec. 10, 1975, was executed which was effective since Oct. 26, 1974. Sujan Singh and his son Jaswinder Singh filed a suit on the basis of memo of partition, which was decreed by Senior Sub Judge on Jan. 28,1976. The premises in dispute fell to the share of Kuldip Singh petitioner. On May 27, 1976, Kuldip Singh petitioner claiming to be the landlord of the premises filed an application for ejectment against Parkash Chand on the grounds of non-payment of rent w.e.f. Mar. 1, 1976 and personal requirement. The petitioner was in railway service and he retired as Inspector of Works on Aug. 31, 1976.

(2.) The arrears of rent claimed by the petitioner was tendered on the first date of hearing. Parkash Chand denied that he was liable to be ejected. He raised the plea that on Nov. 11, 1975, Sujan Singh father of the petitioner had agreed to sell the premises in his occupation to him for Rs. 35000/- vide agreement Ex.R.13 and he paid Rs. 2000/- as earnest money besides Rs. 2100/- for purchase of stamp paper to Sujan Singh. The sale deed was to be executed and registered by Nov. 30, 1976 or within one month after the purchase of the stamp paper by Sujan Singh and the intimation thereof to him whichever was later. He has ceased to be tenant of the premises after the execution of the agreement Ex.R.13 and he is in possession thereof in part performance of the agreement under S.53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. The ejectment petition filed against him by the petitioner under the Act is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) The petitioner as also his father Sujan Singh have denied that the latter had agreed to sell the premises to Parkash Chand. The execution of the agreement Ex.R.13 has also been denied. The Rent Controller vide order dated June 8, 1981, held that Sujan Singh did not execute the agreement Ex.R.13 nor deed he agree to sell premises to Parkash Chand. It was further held that the petitioner required the premises for his own use. The ejectment application filed by the petitioner was allowed and Parkash Chand was directed to vacate the premises within three months. Parkash Chand died and his ligal representatives filed an appeal against the order of Rent Controller. The appellate authority vide order dated Feb, 17, 1983 allowed the same and set aside the order of the Rent Controller holding that the agreement to sell (Ex.R.13) is genuine and it was duly executed by Sujan Singh and Parkash Chand. Parkash Chand and after his death, his legal representatives are in occupation of the house in part performance of the agreement of sale. The relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties has to come to an end. The petitioner cannot get the house, vacated on the ground of personal requirement. It is against this order that the present revision is directed.