CHAN PARKASH Vs. TARA SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE point in issue in revision here is -whether there exists the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties so as to render the respondent -Tara Singh liable thereby to ejectment at the instance of the petitioner Chan Parkash under the provisions of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) THE property, in respect of which the parties are litigating is house -4940 in Mohalla Palledaran, Saddar Bazar, Ambala Cantt. This was an evacuee property which had been allotted by the Custodian to Tara Singh on payment of Rs. 4/ - per month. It stands established from the material on record that vide sanad exhibit P/1, this property stands duly conveyed in favour of the petitioner Chan Parkash since October, 1983. Chan Parkash is thus the owner while Tara Singh has continued in possession ever since.

(3.) THE view that an allottee was a mere licencee and not a tenant can no longer stand in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Gobind Ram v. Takhat Mal Kanungo and another, (1962) 64 P.L.R. 969, where the argument that Section 29 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, created a special jurisdiction for persons mentioned therein, namely; allotters of evacuee property lawfully in possession thereof, by deeming them to be tenants, was repelled with the observation, "The mere fact that some special protection against eviction was provided in respect of certain tenants by Section 29 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, does not in any sense, imply that such tenants were not within the jurisdiction of the already existing Tribunals." It was further observed." "When Parliament said emphatically, such persons in lawful occupation of transferred property were to be deemed tenants, the intent on was that they would be subject to the same jurisdiction as other tenants occupying premises in urban areas."