KAMLESH RANI Vs. MULKH RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlady's revision petition in whose favour the eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller, but the same was set aside in appeal.

(2.) THE landlady Shrimati Kamlesh Rani, sought the ejectment of her tenant Mulkh Raj from the house, in dispute, which was let on a monthly rent of Rs. 60/-. The ejectment was sought primarily on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent from January, 1978 to July, 1981 and that she bonafide required the premises for her own use and occupation as her husband was employed in a foreign country, i.e., Iraq and therefore, she wanted to occupy the demised premises for her residence. At present, she was living in the village where there was no proper arrangement for the education of her children. On the first date of hearing, the tenant tendered the rent from June 15, 1980 to October 15,1981. So far as the rent for the period earlier thereto was concerned, it was pleaded that the same was paid to Piara Singh, the father of the landlady. As regards her bonafide requirement to occupy the same, it was pleaded that she was residing in the house of her husband in the village located in Himachal Pradesh and that there was no occasion for her to shift from that village to the Nangal Township where the demised premises are situated. The learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the house, in dispute, was bonafide required by the landlady for her personal use and occupation. It was also found that the tenant had not made a valid tender as the rent prior to June, 1980, had not been proved to have been paid to Piara Singh, the father of the landlady, as alleged. In view of these findings, the eviction order was passed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reversed both the said findings of the Rent Controller, allowed the appeal, set aside the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller and dismissed the ejectment application filed by the landlady. Dissatisfied with the same, she has come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant evidence on this record. Admittedly, the tenant never contested that the landlady was not the owner of the premises, in dispute, or there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties; rather, in the written statement, he admitted that the house, in dispute, was owned by her. That being so, there was no occasion for the learned Appellate Authority to go into this matter for the first time in appeal. Apart from that there is absolutely no evidence on the record to come to the conclusion that the house originally belonged to the said Piara Singh and that the transferred the same in favour of his daughter; the landlady, to eject the tenant. This finding is based on surmises and conjectures. According to the landlady, the house was purchased by her husband in her name from on Chuhar Singh. She categorically denied that she purchased the same from her father Piara Singh. In theses circumstances, the whole approach of the Appellate Authority was wholly wrong and misconceived.