NEK SINGH Vs. GURNAM KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's petition against whom the eviction application was dismissed by the Rent Controller, but allowed in appeal.

(2.) SHRIMATI Gurnam Kaur sought the ejectment of her tenant Nek Singh from the premises, in dispute, which consisted of a residential house which was rented out on November 1, 1971, on a monthly rent of Rs. 30. Kaur Singh, the husband of the landlady was the mortgagee of the demised premises. He inducted Nek Singh as the tenant on the demised premises. After the death of Kaur Singh on June 10, 1974, Shrimati Gurnam Kaur, his widow, succeeded to his property. She filed the ejectment application against the tenant on February 20, 1975, on the grounds that he was in arrears of the rent with effect from November 1, 1971 and that he had sublet the premises to respondent No. 2, Shrimati Sham Kaur. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, the rights of the landlady as a mortgagee and the creation of the tenancy were denied. It was pleaded that the house, in question, was in fact, owned by Sadhu Singh and Jwala Singh sons of Bishan Singh who had purchased the same from Lal Singh on May 18, 1949. The allegations of the sub-tenancy in favour of respondent No. 2 were also denied that it was pleaded that she was the father's sister of Nek Singh, respondent, and was living with him. The main controversy between the parties was as to whether there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties or not. The learned Rent Controller held that it has not been proved that there was any relationship of landlord and tenant between Kaur Singh and Nek Singh. Ultimately, the eviction application was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that the relationship of landlord and tenant was proved between Shrimati Gurnam Kaur, applicant and Nek Singh, respondent. Since no arrears were tendered or paid on the first date of hearing, the eviction order was passed against the tenant. Dissatisfied with the same, he has come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this revision petition.