BACHAN LAL Vs. GORA LAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Gora Lal and his two brothers filed an application for eviction of their sister's son. Bachan Lal Petitioner from the alleged tenancy premises comprised of three rooms and a courtyard. It is the common case of both sides that Sheela Devi, the sister of the respondents, in occupation of the two out of the three rooms and courtyard since before the tenancy of the petitioner started and she continues to be in possession of that part of the premises in dispute. In July 21, 1965, the respondents obtained rent note Exhibit A. 1, from the petitioner in respect of the entire premises in dispute. The rent note stated that the tenancy would commence from July 1, 1965 and the rate of rent would be Rs. 20/- per month. The rent note was signed by Groa Lal respondent only. Rent was also paid by the petitioner to Gora Lal alone. All the three respondents had, however, filed the application jointly on the allegation that they were the joint owners of the disputed premises. The only relevant ground on which eviction was sought of personal requirement of the premises for the tethering of their cattle. The petitioner paid out all arrears of rent at the stipulated rate but contested the application on the ground that the respondent's sister was in possession of the disputed house as an owner but the petitioner had been persuaded by Gora Lal respondent to execute the Rent note on the representation that on execution thereof Gora Lal would be able to put the petitioner in possession of the entire premises by taking away the two rooms and courtyard from his (Gora Lal's) sister, but Gora Lal had failed to deliver possession of the entire disputed premises and that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the application was liable to be dismissed.

(2.) By his order dated June 9, 1972, Shri P.C. Singal, Rent Controller, Patiala, held that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between Kishan Chand and Prem Chand respondents on the one hand and the petitioner on the other and that possession of the whole of the disputed house had never been given to the petitioner in pursuance of the Rent note Exhibit A.1. On the merits of the claim, all that Rent Controller stated in his judgment was :-

(3.) The respondents went up in appeal to the Court of Shri J.S. Mander. Appellate Authority (District Judge) Patiala. By his order under revision dated September 3, 1973. The learned Appellate Authority upheld the finding of the Lower Court on the question of personal requirement on the ground that it had not been challenged before him. That finding has not been questioned even in the grounds for revision of the order of the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority confirmed the findings of fact recorded by the Rent Controller about there being no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the two respondents, other than Gora Lal. The findings of the Rent Controller about the petitioner never having been given possession of two out of the three rooms was also affirmed in the following words :-