KAPIL DEV GUPTA Vs. RAM KISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KAPIL Dev Gupta petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the learned Rent Controller, Patiala under Section 13A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act'), by filing an application for ejectment of the respondent, who is tenant under him, from two rooms, one kitchen and one baithak adjacent to the deodhi on the ground floor of house No. 1398/2, situated in Jand Gali near Darshani Gate, Patiala. He alleged in the application that the said premises were let out to the respondent for the purpose of residence at the rate of Rs. 60/- per month. Thus, there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He claimed that he was in the service of the Government of India and was posted at Delhi and it was for this reason that he had let out the said premises to the respondent. He retired from service on 30.9.1981 and wanted to settle permanently at his native place Patiala in the house in dispute. He, therefore, prayed that an order should be passed in his favour for recovery of possession of the premises from the respondent. He averred that he neither owned nor was occupying any residential house in the urban area concerned nor had he vacated such a building without sufficient cause after the commencement of the Act.

(2.) NOTICE of the application was given by the learned Rent Controller to the respondent who moved an application for leave to contest the ejectment application. He was granted leave and the learned Rent Controller proceeded to decide the application on merits taking into consideration the defence raised by the respondent and ultimately dismissed the application of the petitioner vide order dated 13.9.1986. The petitioner is aggrieved against this order and has therefore invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under the proviso to Sub-section (8) of Section 18A of the Act.

(3.) THE case of the petitioner as brought out through his application and the evidence adduced is that his grandfather Telu Ram was the owner of house No. 1398/2 situated in Jand Gali near Darshani Gate Patiala, of which the demised premises is a part. On the death of Telu Ram his three sons, namely, Lachhman Dass, Ram Chand and Chet Ram, succeeded to his estate and became the owner of the said house in equal shares. They effected a normal partition of the house and have been in separate possession of their respective portions. They have also paying house-tax separately. The case, thus, set up by the petitioner was supported by Bhim Aggarwal A.W. 2/A and A.W. 2/B. The site plan Ex. A.W. 2/A depicts the accommodation in the house in dispute on the ground floor. It shows that the portion of the house shown in green colour is in possession of Lachhman Dass son of Telu Ram. It consists of two rooms, one Dalan and one kitchen. The portion shown in red colour had fallen to the share of the Ram Chand son of Telu Ram. It consists of three rooms, a baithak near deodhi and a kitchen. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the only son of Ram Chand. On the death of Ram Chand, the petitioner became the owner of the said portion of the house and out of this portion he let out two rooms, one baithak and one kitchen to the respondent while he continued to keep in his possession one room in the rear shown in red dots. The site plan Ex. A.W. 2/B pertains to the first floor of said house. It consists of three rooms and an open terrace. These rooms are shown in green colour and had fallen to the share of Chet Ram son of Telu Ram, on the death of Chet Ram, these are owned by his two sons - Dhanan Jai and Bhim Aggarwal A.W. 2. It is further not in dispute that out of these three rooms, two rooms were let out by Bhim Aggarwal to Ram Kishan respondent while one room shown in green dots continued to remain in the occupation and possession of Dhanan Jai and Bhim Aggarwal themselves. It was further not disputed before me that on an application for ejectment under Section 13 of the Act filed to Dhanan Jai and Bhim Aggarwal, the eviction of the respondent from the aforesaid two rooms was ordered by the Rent Controller, Patiala, on 31.1.1986. The ground of eviction that was established was that Dhanan Jai who was in Government service had since retired on attaining the age of superannuation. During the period of his service he was living in Delhi and on retirement he wanted to come back to his native town and occupy the aforesaid two rooms let out to the respondent along with one room already in occupation of two brother on the first floor of the house. An appeal filed by Ram Kishan respondent against the order of ejectment dated 31.7.1986 from the two rooms on the first floor of the house in dispute was dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority, Patiala, on 21.4.1987. Civil Revision No. 1671 of 1987 filed in this Court was dismissed in limine by J.V. Gupta, J. on 25.5.1987.