INDER SINGH Vs. RAGHBIR CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAGHBIR Chand, respondent No. 1 claiming himself to be the owner and landlord filed an application on 12th April, 1977 io the Court of Rent Controller, Sunam, under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act') for ejectment of Charan Dass respondent No. 2. It was stated therein that two houses fully described in the head note of the application had been 1et out by respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 2 vide rent note dated 22nd December, 1976. Respondent No. 2 had been continuing as tenant in the said premises since 1.4.1976. As per the conditions of the rent note, the period of tenancy was one year from 1.4.1976 to 31.3.1977. The ejectment of respondent No. 2 was sought on two grounds, namely that he neither paid nor tendered the rent right from 1.4.1976 in spite of the fact that a sum of Rs. 180/- was agreed by him to be paid to respondent No. 1 by 25.12.1976 as mentioned in the rent note and that he had sub-let the aforesaid premises to Inder Singh and Ronaq Singh who are petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 in the present revision petition. He had sublet the premises without the written consent of respondent No. 1 to Inder Singh and Ronqa Singh. Respondent No. 2 filed his written statement. He admitted the ownership of respondent No. 1 qua the premises in dispute. He also admitted that he was a tenant under him but pleaded that he had paid rent for eight months as mentioned in the rent note. He also admitted that he had sublet the premises to the petitioners, without the written consent of the landlord. The real contest against respondent No. 1, however, came from the petitioner, who filed their separate written statement. They disputed the ownership of respondent No. 1 qua the premises in dispute. They also denied that the premises were ever let out by respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 2 or that the same were sublet further by respondent No. 2 to them. They alleged that the application for ejectment had been filed by respondent No. 1 in collusion with respondent No. 2. They claimed that they were in possession of the premises in dispute since the time of their father and they are thus, the owners of the same. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller, framed the following issues :

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through their pleadings and the evidence adduced by them before the learned Rent Controller. I am of the considered view that the judgment of the learned Appellate Authority cannot be sustained. Reasons for the same follow.

(3.) STRANGELY enough, while respondent No. 2 required proof from the petitioners during cross-examination of Inder Singh, petitioner No. 1 as to their ownership of the houses in dispute and put a specific question whether they were recorded as owners thereof in the municipal record, he himself did not adduce any evidence worth the name to prove that he was the owner of the house. He no doubt, made an attempt by placing on the record a certified copy of the assessment register of the Municipal Committee, Sunam, mark 'A' to the effect that he is the owner of the houses Nos. 98 of 100. But these municipal Nos. have not been connected with the two houses in dispute. That there is no evidence whatsoever on the record to the effect that respondent No. 1 is the owner of the house in dispute.