MANGAT SINGH Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OM Parkash purchased the property in dispute vide registered sale deed dated 16.7.1956. On 4.3.1974, he filed a petition for ejectment against Mangat Singh tenant under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter called the Act) on the ground of non-payment of rent since he was in arrears of rent from 1.3.1969 at the rate of Rs. 40 per month. The petition was contested and it was pleaded that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant. The landlord led evidence but the tenant in spite of several opportunities, neither appeared as his own witness, nor produced any other evidence. The Rent Controller by order dated 1.9.1976 ordered the ejectment of the tenant since he was found to be in arrears of rent which he did not pay on the first date of hearing. It was also held that relationship of landlord and tenant was proved. The tenant remained unsuccessful before the Appellate Authority. This is revision by the tenant.

(2.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, I am of the view that there is no scope for interference in this revision. There was unrebutted evidence on the record that Mangat Singh was tenant of the premises in dispute at the rate of Rs. 40 per month. Before filing the ejectment petition, the landlord had issued notice to the tenant to terminate the tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. In that notice it was clearly mentioned that the tenant was in arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 40 per month. The tenant did not give any reply to that notice and remained quiet. Again when the ejectment petition was filed except for bare denial of relationship of landlord and tenant, he did not plead as to in which capacity he was in possession of the premises. However, when the landlord appeared in the witness-box, he was cross-examined suggesting that he had let him in as a licensee and not as a tenant. On this basis both the Courts below concluded that the plea of licensee was neither taken up in reply to the notice, nor in the written statement. Therefore, such a plea could not be allowed to be raised at the time of arguments.

(3.) THE tenant did not obtain any stay from this Court. In the absence of any stay order, he must have been ejected in execution of the ejectment order. However, the counsel for the parties are not aware of the actual facts in this regard.