PREM RAJ Vs. BABU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision under Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. 1939 has arisen out of a petition filed by the landlord-petitioner for eviction of tine respondent from the demised premises consisting of two rooms, one tabela, stair-case and a compound, alleged to have been given on rent at the rate of Rs. 80 per month vide rent note dated January 6, 1972. The tenant controverted the said allegations and pleaded that he had taken only one room with tabela, stair-case and a compound at a monthly rent of Rs. 18 per month 8/9 years back and handed over its vacant possession to the landlord on September 30. 1972. The other room, he alleged, had been taken on rent from the brother of the landlord, who is co-owner of the house in dispute. The same was also vacated by him and its possession handed-over to the landlord. The Rent Controller accepted the version of the landlord and ordered ejectment. However, on appeal, his order was reversed and the ejectment petition dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the landlord has approached this Court by way of this petition.

(2.) It is not disputed that the house in dispute now is lying in a dilapidated condition and is not fit for human habitation. Similar was the condition of the house when the Rent Controller went to inspect the spot. It is, thus, evident that the tenant was not in its possession when the application for ejectment was filed. There was, therefore, no necessity of seeking any ejectment order and the landlord could himself take possession of the demised premises. The question between the parties could be only that of the liability of the respondent for payment of rent which was beyond the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. May be the landlord was entitled to seek ejectment from one room, the possession of which the tenant handed over to his brother, but it is not necessary to go into this matter as admittedly civil suit is pending between the co-sharers regarding various properties including the property in dispute. It would be, therefore, wholly futile to pass any order on merits in this petition with respect to that room as well which is admittedly not in possession of the tenant.

(3.) For the reasons recorded above, this petition is dismissed, but without any order as to costs.