PREM KUMAR Vs. SHIV RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 521 to 529 of 1985 as the question involved is common in all the cases.

(2.) ONE Bal Mukand was the original landlord of the premises in dispute. He had taken on lease the land underneath the premises from the Zila Parishad, Gurdaspur, originally on December 29, 1952, for 10 years. Later on, the said period was being extended from time to time and ultimately it was extended upto December 29, 1978. According to the terms of the lease deed, the Zila Parishad has permitted the lessee Bal Mukand to raise constructions thereon and to sublet the same. Ultimately, on October 18, 1978, Bal Mukand executed an agreement Exhibit R.W. 2/A whereby he agreed that after the expiry of the lease period he will remove the material And hand over the vacant possession to the Zila Parishad and, in case he fails to do so the Zila Parishad will take possession as such and in that situation the lessee will not be entitled to claim any price for the constructions raised. After the execution of the said agreement, Bal Mukand died: His heirs and legal representatives filed the present application for ejectment on April, 17, 1982, against the tenants alleging that they were in arrears of rent from September 1, 1978 to March 31, 1982, and therefore, they were liable to be ejected. In the written statement, the plea taken was that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The lease in favour of Bal Mukand stood terminated on December 29, 1978, and was not renewed thereafter. Bal Mukand died on March 31, 1979. After his death, the landlord did not inherit any right in the property in dispute. It was admitted that the premises in dispute were constructed by Bal Mukand and were let out by him, but now these premises vested in the Zila Parishad, Gurdaspur, in whose favour the tenants had executed rent notes and were paying the rent regularly to the Zila Parishad.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners contended that unless the tenants surrender their possession in favour of the landlords they could not be allowed to question the title in view of the provisions of section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act. According to the learned counsel, unless the tenants surrender the possession, the question of removing the Malva or the material could not arise. Thus argued the learned counsel, the view taken by the Appellate Authority was erroneous, whereas the view taken by the Rent Controller in this behalf was correct. It was also contended that the Zila Parishad could not assume the possession of the premises in dispute by accepting the rent from the tenants unless the lessee Bal Mukand was evicted from the premises in due course of law. Unless Bal Mukand was evicted from the premises by the Zila Parishad, he continued to be the lessee on the land in dispute and was thus entitled to eject his tenants. In support of his contention, be referred to Nahar Singh v. Mohan Lal, 1971 P.L.J. 328. Gajadhar Lodha v. Khas Mahtadib Colliery Co. and others, AIR 1959 Patna 562 and Mt. Bilas Kanwar v. Desraj Ranjit Singh and others, AIR 1915 P.C. 96.