LALA Vs. HARKARAN SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenant's petition against whom eviction order has been passed by both the Authorities below.

(2.) Harkaran Singh, landlord, sought ejectment of his tenant Ismail Khan and his son Lalla from the house in dispute, alleging that he had purchased the house vide sale deed dated 27th, April, 1977, and had thus become its landlord qua the tenants. The ejectment was sought on the ground that the tenants had been in arrears of rent for the period 12th April, 1972 to 11th May, 1977. It was further pleaded that the house was in a dilapidated condition, and further, that the landlord required the house bona fide for his own use and occupation as he had no other house in the urban area concerned. In the Written Statement, it was pleaded that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was further pleaded that the tenants had been residing in the house for the last 20 years as its owners, without paving any rent. The other averments made by the landlord were also denied. The learned Rent Controller found that there existing a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties; that since the tenants did not tender any rent on the first date of hearing they were liable to ejectment and that the building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, as it was in a dilapidated condition. A finding was also recorded that the landlord bona fide required the premises for his own use and occupation. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller, and thus, maintained the eviction order. Aggrieved with these orders, the tenant Lala has filed this petition.

(3.) The main controversy between the parties is as to the relationship of landlord and tenant. According to Lala, appearing as A.W. 1. the house in dispute was owned by him and he had been in possession thereof for the last 20 years; that the same was a Muslim Evacuee property and he did not pay rent to anybody; that his father Ismail Khan never execute, any rent note, and he also had no right in the property in dispute. There is a copy of the judgment Ex PX in a suit brought by Lala Khan against the landlord petitioner and Om Parkash claiming himself to be owner by adverse possession. He had sought a declaration about his ownership and also a permanent injunction, and his suit was decreed only with respect to the permanent injunction to the effect that his possession was permissive and shall not he disturbed except in due course of law. The suit for declaration was, however, dismissed. It was held in the suit that the house in dispute was taken on rent by Ismail Khan, father of Lala Khan, and he, being the son of Ismail Khan, had come into permissive possession. Though no one has appeared for the petitioner, I have gone through the record and find that apart from that evidence, there is also overwhelming evidence to prove the execution of rent note Ex. A 4, executed by Ismail Khan. He did not come into the witness-box to deny the same. In these circumstances, I do not find any Infirmity or illegality with the concurrent findings of the two authorities below so as to be interfered within revision. Once it is found that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the tenant is liable to ejectment because he has not paid the arrears of rent, and further that the landlord bona fide required the premise: for his personal use and occupation and the same have become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Consequently, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs.