O.P. MODI Vs. KARTARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's revision petition whose ejectment application was allowed by the Rent Controller, but dismissed in appeal.

(2.) THE landlord, Dr. O.P. Modi, sought the ejectment of his tenant, Shrimati Kartari, from the house No. 245, situated in Mohalla Talian, Sirhind on the allegations of non-payment of the arrears of rent with effect from August 1, 1969 to July 31, 1972. The eviction application was filed on August 1, 1972, wherein it was pleaded that the applicant was the owner of house No. 245; referred to above and that the respondent was residing therein as a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 5/- since November 12, 1966. Since the rent had not been paid since August 1, 1969 to July 31, 1972, amounting to Rs. 180/-, she was liable to be ejected therefrom. The application was contested by the tenant on the ground that the applicant was not the owner of the demised premises, nor she was the tenant under him. According to her, she was residing in the said premises as a tenant under Kalu Ram, the father of the applicant. It was further stated by her that the rent had been paid by her to Kalu Ram. The learned Rent Controller found that in view of the rent note, Exhibit A.1, dated November 12, 1966, showing the applicant as the landlord and the respondent as the tenant, the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between them. Since no arrears of rent were paid or tendered on the first date of hearing the eviction order was passed against the tenant. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller as it was found by it that the rent note Exhibit A.1, was never executed by the tenant. The Appellate Authority discussed the evidence of Om Parkash, A.W.3 the scribe of the rent note, Exhibit A.1, and came to the conclusion that the execution of the said document was not proved. The rent note was alleged to bear the thumb-mark of Shrimati Kartari, respondent. Surprisingly enough, no effort was made on behalf of the landlord to prove her thumb-impression thereon. On the other hand, Shrimati Kartari herself produced an expert witness to prove that the rent note, Exhibit A.1, did not bear her thumb-impression. It was, therefore, ultimately, held by the Appellate Authority that the execution of the rent note, Exhibit A.1, was not proved. Apart from the above, it was further found that Kalu Ram, the father of the petitioner had been realising the rent even after the execution of the rent note, Exhibit A.1. Thus, it was concluded that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Consequently, the ejectment application filed on behalf of the landlord was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the same, he has filed this revision petition in this Court.

(3.) AFTER hearing the petitioner, in person, as well as the counsel for the respondent and going through the relevant evidence on the record, I do not find any merit in this revision petition.