HARBANS SINGH Vs. BALJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's revision directed against the orders of the Authorities below whereby he has been ordered to be ejected on the ground of personal necessity of the landlords.

(2.) VIDE two sale-deeds dated 23.9.1983 and 26.9.1983 duly registered with the Sub Registrar the House in dispute was purchased in equal shares by Smt. Baljit Kaur wife of Amarjit Singh son of Jagat Ram and by Jagat Ram, i.e. father-in-law of Smt. Baljit Kaur. Ejectment of the tenant was sought on the grounds (i) non-payment of rent w.e.f. 23.9.1983; (ii) requirement of premises for personal use and occupation of landlords; and (iii) sub-letting of the premises by the tenant to one Dhan Singh, his brother. Tenant on the first date of hearing tendered the entire arrears of rent and also the interest and costs. In his written statement, tenant took up the plea that the premises are not required by the landlord for their use and occupation and the application for ejectment has been filed by them in collusion with Amarjit Singh, husband of Baljit Kaur and Pritpal Singh, original owner of the property. The tenant also denied the allegation of sub-letting. It was also averred that the sale in favour of the landlords is Sham and paper transaction and has been effected in order to seek ejectment of the tenant.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has raised only one contention, i.e. the sale of the house in dispute in favour of the landlords is a Sham and paper transaction and has been affected in order to eject the tenant. Counsel contended that previous to the present petition, Pritpal Singh, original owner had filed an application for ejectment. That application was dismissed by the Court of Shri N.D. Bhatara, Rent Controller, Ludhiana and the appeal against that order too was dismissed. Counsel also contended that on failure of Pritpal Singh to eject the tenant, the house has been transferred in the name of the landlords only with a view to eject the tenant.