WAHEGURU SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. AVTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of the aforementioned two petitions filed by the land-lords which have arisen out of rent case No.40 of 1997 and 38 of 1999. In both cases, eviction has been sought on the ground of non-payment. In case No.40 rent was demanded from 01.11.1993 till 31.07.1997 and in second petition, from 01.08.1997 till 10.08.1999. In both the cases, the respondent took up plea that the petitioners were not his land-lord and also claimed that the rent was actually Rs.500.00 per month as against amount of Rs.650.00 per month claimed by the petitioners.

(2.) The Rent Controller held that the petitioners were the land-lord and the rate of rent was Rs.650.00 per month but dismissed the petition since the respondent had tendered the rent under protest. The respondent went up in appeal and the appellate authority accepted his contention that the petitioners were not his land-lord and also that the rate of rent was Rs.500.00 per month which the respondent was bound to pay to one Rajbir Singh and allowed the appeal and that is how land-lord is before this Court.

(3.) It may be noticed here that there is a long list of litigations between the parties and neither of them have exactly acquitted himself with any glory and both the parties are equally guilty of approaching the Court with unclean hands. The predecessor of the petitioners had earlier filed eviction petitions against the respondent as an attorney for his wife claiming that she was the owner and had then withdrawn those petitions after collecting the rent which the respondent had deposited under protest. He had thereafter executed sale deed dated 05.07.1996 by which he sold the property to the present petitioners and other persons. The respondent on his part filed a complaint dated on 24.04.1997 to the Collector under Sec. 47-A of the Stamp Act (for short 'the Act') alleging that the sale deed in favour of the petitioners and other co-vendees was undervalued. Subsequently he pleaded that the present petitioners and their co-owners have no right to claim rent from him. It is against this background of competing falsehoods that this case has to be decided.