SANT KAUR Vs. RAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 27.10.1986 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Patiala, whereby ejectment of the tenant-petitioner from a Chobara on the Railway Road, Hamayunpur, Tehsil Sirhind, district Patiala, has been ordered. When the revision petition was admitted by J.V. Gupta, J., on 19.1.1987, the judgment of the petitioner was stayed on the condition that she deposits rent with effect from 1.8.1980 upto date along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum after deducting the amount already paid/deposited by her and pays future rent by the 10th of every month in advance. It has not been disputed before me that this condition was duly fulfilled, and the arrears of rent from 1.8.1982 upto date stand paid by the petitioner to the landlord-respondent.

(2.) THE respondent filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act') seeking eviction of the petitioner from the demised premises. It was averred that the previous owner of the building of which the demised premises from a part was Gurdial Singh son of Udai Singh from whom the respondent purchased the same vide sale deed dated 25.7.1980. It was further averred that the petitioner was a tenant under Gurdial Singh at the rate of Rs. 18/- per month and that she had become a tenant under the respondent with effect from 1.8.1982. There was, thus, a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was further claimed that the petitioner was in arrears of rent with effect from 1.8.1980. Two other grounds for ejectment were also set out in the ejectment application, namely, that the petitioner has ceased to occupy the premises for more than 4 months and that the respondent requires the same for his personal use and occupation. The petitioner did not deny the averment that she had become a tenant under the respondent with effect from 1.8.1982. Though the rent was claimed in the application with effect from 1.8.1980, she tendered the same on the first date of hearing with effect from 1.8.1982 to 31.3.1983, which was accepted by the respondent under protest. After receiving evidence the learned Rent Controller reached at the finding that none of the grounds pleaded in the application for ejectment of the petitioner was proved. As a result, the same was dismissed by him vide his order dated 30.7.1980.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is not disputed that in his application for ejectment the respondent specifically stated that the petitioner has become a tenant under him with effect from 1.8.1982. No doubt in the grounds of ejectment he mentioned that she had not paid the arrears of rent with effect from 1.8.1980. It is, however, well known that a landlord cannot seek ejectment of his tenant on the ground that the latter had not paid rent for the period prior to the coming into being of the relationship of landlord and tenant between them. The petitioner, therefore, bonafide, acting on the averment made in the application that the relationship of landlord and tenant had come into being between them with effect from 1.8.1982, tendered of the arrears of rent accruing due from the said date. At a later stage of the proceedings before the Rent Controller, the respondent realised the mistake and amended his application so as to incorporate that the petitioner had become a tenant under him with effect from 1.8.1980.