DULI CHAND Vs. HARI KISHAN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEFLY the facts are that Hari Kishan Dass, respondent in the revision petition, filed an application for ejectment against Duli Chand and Surat Ram petitioners in revision petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, inter alia, on the ground of this the tenants had not paid the arrears of rent; that they had sublet the shop and that they had materially altered the shop by which its value and utility had been reduced. The tenants denied that they were tenants in the shop under the landlord and pleaded that they had purchased his share vide sale-deed dated 11.4.1972. They also controverted other allegations.

(2.) THEY filed an application for staying the proceedings on the ground that there was a dispute regarding title between the parties and that Hari Kishan Das had filed a suit for declaration of his title in a Civil Court. It was alleged that till the decision of the Civil Court regarding title the proceedings for eviction be stayed. The application was contested by the landlord. The Rent Controller came to the conclusion on the basis of the allegations in the petition for ejectment, that the same was maintainable. Consequently, he dismissed the application for stay. The tenants have come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) I have duly considered the argument but regret my inability to accept it. The landlord originally was owner of 1/4th share. He along with his three brothers had let the shop of Duli Chand in 1972. The landlord says that the document executed by him was not a sale deed. Further, he says that Om Parkash, his brother, was also the owner of a part of the property and he died in the year 1961. On his death, his share was inherited by Smt. Giani Devi mother, Smt. Sarla Devi widow and Sarita daughter. Smt. Giani Devi also died in the year 1982 and after her death, he being his son, inherited a part of her share. From the above facts, it is clear that even if it may be assumed that he sold his 1/4th share in favour of Duli Chand on 11.4.1972, he claims to be landlord on account of inheritance of a part of his mother's share in the year 1982. It is well settled that the Rent Controller can decide the question of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. In the circumstances, I do not find sufficient reason to interfere with the order of the Rent Controller declining the revision-petitioner's application for stay.