KAMAL KUMAR Vs. MOHINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KAMAL Kumar son of Hari Kishan son of Madan Gopal filed a petition for ejectment of successors-in-interest of Kirpal Singh tenant on the ground that the shop in dispute had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. In the ejectment petition it was pleaded that Madan Gopal was Karta of the Joint Hindu Family and was owner of the property in dispute as such, which was let out to Kirpal Singh as a tenant. On the death of Kirpal Singh, his sons and daughters were in possession as tenants. It was pleaded that under the family arrangement, Kamal Kumar got the property in dispute who on the strength of the family arrangement, claimed to be the exclusive owner and landlord of the premises and filed the ejectment application.

(2.) THE tenants admitted that their father had taken the premises on rent from Madan Gopal but denied if the property in dispute belonged to Joint Hindu Family or that there was any family arrangement under which title passed on to Kamal Kumar. His locus standi to file the petition was challenged. They also denied if the building was unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The Rent Controller by order dated 3rd December, 1982 found that the property in dispute belonged to Joint Hindu Family of which Kamal Kumar was a coparcener having the right in the property from the date of his birth. He also came to the conclusion that documents relied upon proved family arrangements which did not require stamp and registration. Accordingly, it was held that Kamal Kumar was the sole owner and the landlord of the property qua the respondents, who were the legal representatives of the original tenant. As regards the condition of the building a finding was recorded on the appreciation of evidence that the building was unsafe and unfit for human habitation. As a result, the order of eviction was passed.

(3.) IN para 8 of its report, the Appellate Authority started observing that there was no evidence that the property in dispute was ancestral and then noted that according to Kamal Kumar it had been partitioned and lost its character of being ancestral. Then it is observed that according to Kamal Kumar, his father and grand father formed Joint Hindu Family but according to the learned Judge joint living and joint mess do not prove that Joint Hindu Family owned any property. Then he observed that there was no evidence that Madan Gopal was the owner of the property although he may be landlord within the meaning of Section 2 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. He then observed that the rights of Madan Gopal devolved upon Hari Kishan. Then reference was made to the argument raised on behalf of Kamal Kumar that one of the tenants had admitted that after the death of Madan Gopal, his heirs are the sons and daughters but according to the learned Judge this admission did not amount to prove the ownership of Madan Gopal in the property in dispute. In para 9 of the report reference was made to the document by which family arrangement was arrived at. The argument raised on behalf of the landlord that it could be seen for the purposes of nature and character of possession if not the ownership was noticed. The Appellate Authority observed that since Kamal Kumar has claimed ownership on the basis of family arrangement, he cannot claim the same by inheritance as is the case now set up which is beyond pleadings. The Appellate Authority then observed :-