JOGINDER SINGH Vs. ROSHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant-petitioner has filed this appeal against the order of the Appellate Authority, Karnal, dated 5th January, 1978, whereby the order of the Rent Controller directing his ejectment has been maintained.

(2.) Roshan Lal respondent landlord, has filed an application under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), against Joginder Singh, tenant petitioner, for his eviction from the house in dispute, situated at Panipat. The ejectment is being sought on the ground that the land lord bonafide requires the premises for his own use and occupation. In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant, the allegations made by the landlord were denied and on the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues :-

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that as a matter of fact the very transfer in favour of Roshan Lal, landlord vide sale deed, dated 20th May, 1973, Exhibit P.A is not a bonafide one. The original owner of the house in dispute is one Ram Lal. Earlier, in the year 1962, an effort was made by him to eject the tenant-petitioner. When he failed in all the Courts to eject the tenant the property was transferred in favour of Smt. Indira Rani etc. They also filed an application against him for ejectment from the rented premises and they also field up to the High Court. Failing to eject the tenant by the earlier landlords, the premises are said to have been sold to Roshan Lal, landlord, which according to the learned counsel, is a bogus transaction and has been made only to evict tenant Joginder Singh. In order to support his contention, he referred to the judgment given by the Appellate Authority on 17th October, 1970, Exhibit R.9, in an appeal filed by Joginder Singh, tenant, against his then landlords Kharaiti Lal and Smt. Indira Rani. Certain observations have been made therein that the transfer in their favour by the original owners Ram Lal etc. was a sham transaction, and therefore, the need of the landlords for bonafide requirement of the premises was found against them in that case.