HANS RAJ Vs. RAJ IRON STORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlady's revision petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below.

(2.) HANS Raj, petitioner, claiming himself to be the landlord of the premises, in dispute, filed the ejectment application on April 5, 1973, on the allegations that he was the owner of the premises. He had authorised his real brother Vidya Parkash to manage the property as he himself was not residing at Ludhiana. Vidya Parkash let out premises, in dispute, vide rent note, Exhibit RW 2/2 dated November 11, 1960, to Rajinder Singh. The said Vidya Parkash died in the year 1967. After his death, Hans Raj, petitioner, being his brother and also being the owner of the property, was entitled to move the ejectment application. The ejectment was sought on the grounds that the tenant was in arrears of rent from the year 1967 and that he had materially impaired the value and utility of the premises. In the written statement, the tenant pleaded that the promises were let out to him by Vidya Parkash who was the landlord and that after his death, his widow had been releasing the rent from him realising, therefore, there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. According to him, the rent had already been paid upto the end of September, 1973 and that no damage had been caused to the premises as alleged. The learned Rent Controller, after discussing the entire evidence came to the conclusion that the petitioner Hans Raj had failed to prove that the respondent was ever a tenant under him. In view of the said finding, the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said finding of the Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the order dismissing the ejectment application.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through, the relevant evidence on the record, I do not find any impropriety or illegality in the concurrent findings of the authorities below.