PT. PARAS RAM Vs. THAKAR SHANKAR DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 1419 and 1970 of 1984 as common question is involved in both the cases and were disposed of by one judgment of the appellate Court.

(2.) THE controversy relates to a vacant site measuring 116 feet x 48 feet. The ejectment application was filed by Paras Ram alleging that he is the owner of the site in question and the respondent Shankar Dass was occupying the same as a tenant under him at the rate of Rs. 50 per month on the basis of rent note dated March 8, 1969. The ejectment was sought on the ground that the tenant had not paid the rent of the site in dispute since January 18, 1979, and that the landlord bonafide required the site for his personal use and occupation as he wanted to extend his business of fuel wood and saw machine for his sons Ramesh Chander and Parshotam Dass who are married and want to start their independent business. The petition was contested inter alia on the ground that the petitioner was not the owner of the demised premises. It was alleged that it was an evacuee property and has since been sold to Ram Nath respondent No. 2 for Rs. 23,200 by the Rehabilitation Department who also charged the rent from him from May 1, 1968 to July 1, 1980. Thus it was pleaded that Ram Nath became the owner of the site in question and the relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties had come to an end. The learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties had come to an end after Ram Nath became the owner of the property in dispute and the petitioner had no right to get the premises vacated. Consequently, the petition was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller and thus maintained the order rejecting the application. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord has filed this petition in this Court.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of the rent note dated March 8, 1969, executed by Shankar Dass tenant in favour of Paras Ram, he could not deny the title of his landlord in view of the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act. In any case, argued the learned counsel, since the title of Ram Nath is also in dispute it could not be held that he has become the owner and landlord of the demised premises.