MAHANT SAROWAR NATH Vs. AMAR NATH PARDESI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mahant Sarowar Nath filed ejectment petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act against the respondents. It was pleaded that Amar Nath Pardesi, respondent No.1 was the tenant on the monthly rent of Rs.13/- per month. The demised property consisted of two residential rooms along with a courtyard. The said tenant/respondent has raised unauthorised construction in the courtyard in the shape of a verandah, one room and one shop. All these material alterations have been made by the respondent-tenant without the written consent of the petitioner. The shop has been sublet to the Dry Cleaners and Launderers. Part of the courtyard has also been sublet in favour of Bishan Dass Mahajan, respondent. Hence, ejectment was sought on the ground of non payment of arrears of rent, subletting, ceasure to occupy the property, using the property for a purpose other than that for which it was rented out, impairing the value and utility of the building etc.

(2.) Amar Nath Pardesi filed written statement and contested the case. Preliminary objection was pleaded that he was the owner of demised property and the jurisdiction of Rent Controller was disputed. The said respondent re-asserted on merits that he was in possession since 1947 after the partition of the country and his possession was continuous, peaceful and hostile and,therefore, he has become owner by adverse possession. He denied his status as a tenant. It was also denied if he had sublet the premises. He asserted his right to use the property in any manner he liked. It was admitted that the shop and the rooms were constructed by him but it was done after getting the site plan sanctioned from the Municipal Committee. It was denied if he had parted with the possession of any part of the courtyard. Issues were framed. The parties led the evidence.

(3.) The learned Rent Controller vide judgment dated 14.1.1983 found that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and ground for ejectment was made out. Therefore, the petition for ejectment was accepted and the respondents were directed to hand over the vacant possession of the demised property to the petitioner. Amar Nath Pardesi filed an appeal against the said judgment dated 14.1.1983. The learned Appellate Authority reversed the finding of fact recorded by the learned Rent Controller,accepted the appeal and set aside the order of ejectment passed against the respondents vide judgment dated 20.2.1984. Hence, the present petition. Submissions have been considered.