BHIM SAIN Vs. SHANTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Civil Revision under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (briefly the Act) arises out of the judgment dated 13.1.1978 of the Appellate Authority under the Act, affirming in appeal the order of the Rent Controller, Ambala dated 26.8.1976 by virtue of which the Rent Controller ordered the ejectment of Bhim Sain, tenant-petitioner from the shop in dispute, situated at Jagadhri.

(2.) SHANTI Devi respondent filed an application under Section 13 of the Act for ejectment of the tenant-petitioner, alleging that she was the landlady qua the shop in occupation of the petitioner who was a tenant under her. She proceeded to stare that Gurdevi was the owner and landlady of the shop and the petitioner was a tenant under her. On the death of Gurdevi, she, being her daughter and sole heir, had succeeded to the estate of her mother. She, thus, became the landlady qua the tenant-petitioner. She further alleged that the tenant had not paid rent, earlier for the period from 22.7.1971 to 21.11.1971. She had filed an application against the tenant-petitioner on the ground of non-payment of rent. The tenant-petitioner had then tendered the arrears of rent in the Court of the Rent Controller. Thus, he accepted her as his landlady. She filed the instant application on 6.2.1973 for ejectment of the petitioner on the ground that he had again defaulted and had neither paid nor tendered the arrears of rent since 22.11.1971. The tenant-petitioner, on having received the notice of the ejectment application from the Rent Controller, appeared in Court, but did not tender the arrears of rent to save himself from ejectment. He instead took the plea that Lal Chand son of Beni Prashad was the landlord who had served a notice on the tenant-petitioner that he was entitled to receive the rent.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the tenant petitioner contended before me that the authorities below did not have the jurisdiction to decide the question of title. Since there was a dispute between Lal Chand son of Beni Prashad on the one hand and Shanti Devi respondent No. 1, on the other, with regard to the ownership of the shop in dispute, the authorities below ought to have stayed the proceedings and awaited the decision of the Civil Court with regard to the title. The learned counsel also placed reliance on Prithi Raj Mehar Chand v. Hansraj Gurdita Mal, AIR 1969 Punjab and Haryana 256, in support of his contention. I have, however, not been able to persuade myself to agree to this contention. I have held while deciding Regular Second Appeal No. 2114 of 1979, Lal Chand v. Shanti Devi etc., today, that Shanti Devi had succeeded to the estate of her mother Gurdevi and she was, thus, the owner of the properties in dispute in that suit which indisputably include the demised shop also. There was, thus, no excuse for the tenant-petitioner for not tendering the arrears of rent due to Shanti Devi with effect from 22.11.1971, particularly when on an earlier application for ejectment made by Shanti Devi, he had tendered arrears of rent in the Court of the Rent Controller for the period from 22.2.1971 to 21.11.1971. I have, therefore, no reason to differ with the finding arrived at by the authorities below and uphold the order of ejectment passed against the petitioner.