PURAN CHAND Vs. MUNSHI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PURAN Chand filed an application for eviction of the tenant Munshi Ram under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent and Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called the 'Act'), on the ground that the tenant was in arrears of rent from 11th August, 1968 to 10th July, 1975 at the rate of Rs. 5 per month. The tenant disputed the relationship of landlord and tenant and pleaded that he was owner of the site and construction thereon. The Rent Controller by order dated 15th November, 1976 found that the relationship of landlord and tenant was established between the parties because of the oral and documentary evidence brought on the record. Khazan Chand RW 1, a witness of the tenant had stated that large number of persons had constructed their houses on the land belonging to the landlord and thereafter they paid the price of the land became owners and it was in the same manner that the tenant also became owner of the site under his house. Even the tenant while appearing as RW6 admitted in cross-examination that he had purchased the site under the house from the father of the landlord but no sale deed was executed. Therefore, from the evidence it was fully established that the site belonged to the father of the landlord and after his death it belonged to the landlord. Therefore, it is clear that either the site belonged to the landlord as admitted by Khazan Chand, RW 1 or to the father of the landlord. It is not shown on the record that father of the landlord is alive.

(2.) THEN the Rent Controller proceed to notice two documents Exhibit A 3 a receipt dated 11th August, 1968 for Rs. 200 having been executed by the tenant in favour of the landlord regarding the receipt of price of the Malba of the property in dispute. The other document Exhibit A 2 is rent note dated 11th August, 1968 executed by the tenant in favour of the landlord about the premises in dispute at the rate of Rs. 5 per month. The statement of the tenant was referred to by the Rent Controller, wherein when these two documents were put to him, he denied having executed any receipt or the rent note. When he was specifically asked as to whether these two documents bear his thumb impression, the reply of the tenant was as follows :

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record I am of the view that this revision deserves to succeed.