BRIJ LAL Vs. YASH PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition under Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act') is directed against the order dated December 6, 1984 of the learned Appellate Authority, Amritsar, rejecting the objections of the petitioner to the report submitted by the Rent Controller, Amritsar. It has been filed in the following circumstances :-

(2.) THE petitioner filed an application for ejectment of his tenant Yash Pal inter alia on the grounds that tenant was in arrears of rent and he was liable to be ejected from the premises, in dispute, because he had ceased to occupy the demised premises without sufficient cause for a continuous period of four months. The ejectment application was allowed and the tenant's eviction was ordered by the learned Rent Controller. Aggrieved Yash Pal, tenant, went up in appeal.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner-landlord raised a preliminary point that no opportunity was given to the landlord to lead evidence in order to rebut the evidence by the tenant and the case deserved to be remitted to the trial Court so that proper opportunity be afforded to the landlord to lead evidence in terms of the orders of Shri K.C. Dewan, Appellate Authority, dated April 23, 1982, ordering inquiry. This prayer was opposed by the learned counsel for the tenant. The objection raised by the petitioner was rejected mainly on the ground that the inquiry was ordered to be conducted in relation to issue No. 2 as to whether the tenant was liable to be ejected from the land, in dispute, mentioned in the ejectment application. The onus to prove this issue was on the landlord. He had examined his evidence before the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller did not afford proper opportunity to the tenant to lead his evidence. On that score, the Appellate Authority had directed the Rent Controller to make further inquiry and allow the tenant to lead evidence. The evidence was led by the tenant in rebuttal to the evidence led by the landlord. There was, therefore, no occasion for the landlord to adduce any evidence to rebut the evidence led by the tenant.