RAM MURTI Vs. GIAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition under section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter called the Act) is directed against the judgment dated November 28, 1984 of the learned Appellate Authority, Patiala, whereby the order dated October 13, 1982, of the Rent Controller was affirmed and eviction of the tenant-petitioner from the demised premises was ordered. One Dhanno Devi was the owner of the property in dispute and was the landlady qua the tenant-petitioner. On her death, Gian Chand respondent claims to have inherited the property on the basis of a will executed on May 18, 1956, by Smt. Dhanno Devi in his favour. Gian Chand respondent filed a petition under section 13 of the Act for the ejectment of the petitioner on the twin grounds of non-payment of rent and the bonafide personal requirement of the respondent qua the premise in dispute. The respondent claimed rent at the rate of Rs. 80/- per month with effect from September 1, 1976, which has neither been paid nor tendered by the petitioner on the first date of hearing.

(2.) THE tenant-petitioner in reply to the ejectment application denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and himself. He further alleged that the rate of rent was Rs. 20/- per month and not Rs. 80/- per month, as alleged by the respondent. The petitioner tendered rent at the rate of Rs. 20 per month for a period of 41 months amounting to Rs. 820/- along with Rs. 87/- as interest and costs assessed by the learned Rent Controller on January 15, 1980.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner could not successfully assail the concurrent finding of fact of both the Courts below on any of the two grounds on which the ejectment of the petitioner has been ordered. He, however, contended that since the petitioner had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between himself and the respondent and the respondent was claiming succession of Smt. Dhanno Devi on the basis of a will which succession was also being denied by the petitioner, the question of title was involved which could not be decided by the authorities below and they ought to have stayed the proceedings under the Act and should have directed the respondent to have his title determined through a civil Court of competent jurisdiction. For this proposition, the learned counsel relies on Mahi Dass v. Nagar Mal, 1965 PLR 35, Messrs Kharati Ram Bansi Lal and others v. Smt. Radha Rani and another, 1968 PLR 978 and Prithi Raj v. Hans Raj, 1969 RCJ 130. I am not impressed with the contention. The learned Appellant Authority has dealt thread bare with the evidence pertaining to the due execution etc. of the will by Smt. Dhanno Devi whereby she bequeathed her property in favour of the respondent. The authorities below did not encounter any difficulty in reaching at the firm conclusion that the respondent had legally succeeded to the estate of Smt. Dhanno Devi and thus became the landlord qua the petitioner. It is only when the authorities under the Act encounter difficulty in determining the question whether or not there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties because of a serious subsisting dispute of title that they may stay the proceedings and direct the parties to have the title determined from a civil Court of competent jurisdiction. Since for the purpose of determining the relationship of landlord and tenant, the authorities below have reached at their positive finding, there was no occasion for them to stay the proceedings. This very principle is illustrated by the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It must be emphasised here that the finding of the authorities under the Act is limited to the determination of the question of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and once this relationship is established, the authorities assume jurisdiction to adjudicate on the application for ejectment under the Act.