JANKI DEVI Vs. KHUSHIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 6.3.1980 passed by the learned District Judge, Jullundur exercising the powers of the Appellate Authority under Section 15(1) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act').

(2.) SMT . Janki Devi Sehgal landlady-petitioner filed an application under Section 13 of the Act before the learned Rent Controller, Jullundur on 15.5.1976 seeking eviction of the tenant-respondent from house No. 92 R.A. Bazar, Jullundur Cantt. The plan showing the extent of accommodation in the said house is Exhibit A-2. It comprises of two rooms and courtyard. The petitioner alleged that she is the owner of the house in dispute and the respondent is tenant under her w.e.f. 1.8.1967 at the monthly rent of Rs. 60/- and as such there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. She claimed the eviction of the respondent on two grounds, namely, that the respondent has neither paid nor tendered rent from 1.10.1973 and that the petitioner bonafide requires the house for her own occupation. She wanted to shift Jullundur Cantt, with her husband. She further alleged that she is not occupying any other building in the urban area of Jullundur nor has she vacated such building without sufficient cause.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Appellate Authority has based its judgment on conjectures. No agreement of sale has been proved on the record. Document Exhibit R-1 is in the form of a receipt which does not contain the terms necessary to constitute the transfer of the property. Learned Appellate Authority has drawn an adverse inference against the petitioner on the ground that her husband Siri Krishan Sehgal who allegedly executed receipt Exhibit R-1 and signed the same, has not appeared in the witness-box to dis-own the same and subject himself to cross-examining. He submits that even assuming, though not admitting, that writing Exhibit R-1 is signed by her husband, this does not constitute an agreement of sale nor had he any authority from the petitioner to execute the same. He further points out that writing Exhibit R-1 by itself shows that the respondent is in occupation of the house as a tenant. The speculation indulged in by the learned Appellate Authority that the world 'kirayedar' between the words 'Hall' and Makaan, is an interpolation in different ink is not all tenable. He submits that a bare perusal of the document shows that the word 'kirayedar' is not in different ink. Moreover, writing Exhibit R-1 has been produced by the respondent from his own possession. It is nowhere the case of the respondent that there is any interpolation in the same. Even if there is any interpolation, it was for the respondent to explain the same. The petitioner could not be put at a dis-advantage on that account.