MUNSHI RAM Vs. HARI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's petition against whom the ejectment application was dismissed by the Rent Controller eviction order was passed by the Appellate Authority.

(2.) IT is the common case of the parties that Kundan Lal was the original owner of the shop in dispute. The premises were let out by him at a monthly rent of Rs. 10/- to the tenant Munshi Ram. Kundan Lal died in the year of 1956, leaving behind his widow, Smt. Rajo. It is admitted by the tenant that after the death of Kundan Lal, he had been paying rent to Smt. Rajo. She also died on 25th July, 1956. After that, according to the landlord Hari Ram, he being the adopted son of Kundan Lal and Smt. Rajo, became the landlord qua the tenant for the premises in dispute, and the tenant had been paying rent to him also after the death of Smt. Rajo. However, the ejectment of application was filed on 15th September, 1980, on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent with effect from April, 1977. The application was contested on the ground that Hari Ram was not the owner of the house nor the landlord and was thus not entitled to receive the rent. According to the tenant, Munshi Ram, Smt. Rajo died about 24 years back leaving behind no heirs and thereafter, he has been in occupation of the house as owner. The claim of the petitioner-landlord that he was adopted son of Smt. Rajo was denied.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the landlord could only succeed if it was proved that he was validly adopted son of Kundan Lal and Smt. Rajo. According to the learned counsel, unless this was proved, the question of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as such does not arise. The validity of the adoption could not be decided by the learned Rent Controller in these proceedings. Thus, argued the learned counsel, the finding of the learned Rent Controller is correct and the learned appellate Authority has reversed the same arbitrarily and illegally. It was also contended that there is nothing on the record to prove that the tenant ever attorned in favour of the landlord after the death of Smt. Rajo. In support of his contentions, he referred to Shri Beant Singh v. Smt. Harbans Kaur, 1980 P.L.R. 310 and Messrs Kharati Ram Bansi Lal and others v. Smt. Radha Rani and another, 1961 P.L.R. 978.