ROMESH KUMAR Vs. ATMA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition for revision is back for disposal on merits. The two contesting respondents No. 1 and 2 are mother and son respectively. As alleged by them, a house situated in Mandi Gobindgarh was owned by one, Biru Lal. It was bequeathed by him by means of a registered will dated 2.3.1949 in favour of one of these two respondents, namely, Atma Devi who was his sister's daughter. Allegedly, Atma Devi used to reside with her maternal uncle in that house and after inheriting it she holds the title paramount. Her son Dharam pal, respondent No. 2, presumably with her tacit consent, gave it on rent on 3.7.1964 to Romesh Kumar petitioner at the rate of Rs. 65/- per mensem. It is alleged that he, in turn, sublet it to Sudesh Kumar, his brother, petitioner No. 2 but the plea of subletting stands practically abandoned. Fourteen years ago Atam Devi filed an application for eviction on 3.11. 1972 against the revision petitioner and petitioner No. 2 before the Rent Controller on a variety of grounds. One ground was of personal necessity requiring the premises for her own occupation. The tenants contested the application on the ground that Atma Devi was not the landlord, for the tenancy was created by Dharam pal. The Rent Controller, vide order dated 22.2.1975 (Annexure R-13), upheld the objection that it was Dharam Pal who was the landlord though a finding was recorded that Atma Devi needed the house for her personal necessity.

(2.) SECOND ground of litigation became thus inevitable. This time Atma Devi joining her son Dharam Pal sought ejectment of the tenant/tenants, inter alia, on the ground of personal necessity. It was asserted in the application that Dharam Pal had acted as an agent of her mother and that the house in question, was required by his mother for her use and occupation. Simultaneously, it was pleaded that the house was required by Dharam Pal for his own occupation, viz, for occupation by his mother. Additionally, it was also pleaded that both the applicants were not occupying any other residential building within the urban area of Mandi Gobindgarh and had not vacated such building without sufficient cause after the commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short "the Act'), in the urban concerned.

(3.) FROM the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Rent Controller:_