GULSHAN KUMAR Vs. KRISHNA WATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Gurdial Singh (now deceased) (predecessor-in-interest of the respondents) filed a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (in short Rent Act) against the petitioner. The grounds pleaded were non payment of arrears of rent with effect from 1.1.1988 to 31.10.1990, impairing the value and utility of the shop materially and personal necessity. It was resisted by the petitioner tenant. Relationship of landlord and tenant was denied as the shop was allegedly rented out to the petitioner by Surta Ram son of Munshi Ram. The rate of rent was also disputed and it Civil Revision No.175 of 2003.

(2.) was pleaded that the entire rent has been paid. The other grounds of ejectment were also denied. Issues were framed. The parties led the evidence. The learned Rent Controller vide judgment dated 21.12.1995 held that the relationship of landlord and tenant was not proved and dismissed the ejectment petition. Gurdial Singh landlord filed an appeal against the judgment dated 21.12.1995 passed by the Rent Controller. The learned Appellate Authority reached the conclusion that Gurdial Singh was the owner of the shop in dispute and Surta Ram being the brother of Gurdial Singh was acting on his behalf and, therefore, the relationship of landlord and tenant between Gurdial Singh and the petitioner-tenant was proved. Accordingly, the appeal was accepted vide judgment dated 30.4.1998 and the matter was remanded to the learned Rent Controller for re-deciding the ejectment petition on merits. The learned Rent Controller vide order dated 23.2.1999 accepted the rent petition and ordered ejectment on the ground of non payment of arrears of rent and personal necessity. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said judgment. The learned Appellate Authority up-held the finding of fact recorded by the learned Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 31.10.2002. Hence, the present Civil Revision. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner was that Civil Revision No.175 of 2003.

(3.) the relationship of landlord and tenant was not proved. This submission has been considered. The respondent has proved on the file a copy of sale deed dated 21.2.1966 as Exhibit P-1. Through this sale deed, Gurdial Singh had purchased the plot over which the shop in dispute was constructed. Obviously, therefore, Gurdial Singh was the owner of the shop in dispute. Admittedly he was serving in the army where he was appointed as a Carpenter on 12.6.1981 and was discharged on 31.1.1990. Admittedly, Surta Ram who had allegedly inducted the petitioner in the shop in dispute as a tenant was real brother of said Gurdial Singh. Since Gurdial Singh was serving in the army and Surta Ram had inducted the petitioner as a tenant in the shop in dispute, owned by said Gurdial Singh, therefore, obviously Surta Ram was acting on behalf of his brother Gurdial Singh,. Therefore, the relationship of landlord and tenant between Gurdial Singh and the petitioner is clearly proved by legal presumptions and inferences which arise from the proved facts. Surta Ram does not claim any interest in the suit property contrary to the interest of Gurdial Singh or after his death against his legal representatives i.e. the respondents. The petitioner has not examined Surta Ram as a witness nor any evidence has been produced by the petitioner to prove that Gurdial Singh was not the owner of the suit property or if Surta Ram was the owner of the suit property or that Surta Ram was dealing with this property independently in his own right. Therefore, there is no force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Surta Ram was the landlord in his own right. Civil Revision No.175 of 2003.