KAUSHALYA DEVI Vs. HUSSAN LAL BISHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by Smt. Kaushalya Devi landlady against the judgment of the Appellate Authority dated 17th October, 1977.

(2.) THE case of the landlady is that she is the owner of the property in dispute and the respondents are the tenants under her. They promised to pay the rent at the rate of Rs. 150/- per mensem which they failed to do. She further alleged that the property was in a dilapidated condition and she wanted it for her personal use. Consequently she filed a petition for ejectment of the respondents on the ground that they had not paid the rent from 12th January, 1972 upto date, that the property was in a dilapidated condition and she wanted to reconstruct the same and that she wanted it for her personal use.

(3.) THE Rent Controller held that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, that the respondents were in arrears of rent, that the property was in dilaptidated condition and that the landlady required the premises for reconstruction. Consequently he ordered ejectment of the tenants. 6. The only question which requires determination is whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The case came up before me earlier and the counsel for the petitioner, in addition to the oral evidence, relied on an application by Hussan Lal filed before the Municipal authorities. An application had been filed under Order 41, rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the petitioner for taking on record the said application. I, after taking into consideration the circumstances of the case, vide order dated 5th December, 1985 accepted the application and remanded the case to the Rent Controller to allow the petitioner to prove the said document and the respondent to lead evidence, in rebuttal. The petitioner proved the application, Exhibit AW 5/A, filed by Hussan Lal before the Municipal Committee. The respondent, on the other hand, produced copies of three house-tax assessment reports in rebuttal, namely, AW 5/R-1 to AW 5/R3 which relate to the property. 7. The petitioner examined Tulsi Ram AW2 and Jatinder Nath AW 4 to establish that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Tulsi Ram stated that the respondent agreed to pay rent of the property at the rate of Rs. 150- per mensem to the petitioner. Jatinder Nath PW 4 supported him. The above version finds corroboration from the application, Exhibit AW 5/A filed by Hussan Lal before the Municipal Committee stating therein that the rent of the property was only Rs. 14/- per annum. It is thus clear from the application as well that Hussan Lal was a tenant in the property. Even in the house-tax assessment report, Exhibit AW 5 R2 the respondents are shown as the tenants. From the aforesaid evidence it is clearly established that the petitioner is the landlady and the respondents are the tenants under her. Consequently I am of the opinion that the finding of the learned Appellate Authority is liable to be set aside. 8. For the aforesaid reasons I accept the revision petition, set aside the order of the Appellate Authority and order ejectment of the respondents. However, I grant the respondents one month's time to vacate the premises. No order as to costs. Civil Misc No. 624-CII of 1985 has already been disposed of by me vide my order dated 5th December, 1985. Revision accepted.