SUNIL KUMAR Vs. MADAN GOPAL SURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord, who obtained order of ejectment under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 under Section 13(3A) suffered reversal of the decision at the Appellate Authority. The revision petitioner before this Court is the landlord.

(2.) THE eviction was sought on the grounds of arrears of rent payable by the tenant from 14.04.1983 and on the ground of personal necessity that the non -residential premises were required for establishing his own business. The basis for the objection was that the father had died on 31.05.1983 when he was still minor and the petition had been filed even before his attaining majority. The fact that the father was the landlord was never in dispute. The objection taken by the tenant in his written statement and at the trial was that the petitioner was not his landlord and that of petitioner's age as stated in the petition was not correct and that he was minor even at the date when the petition was filed. The Rent Controller found that the petitioner had satisfied the requirement under Section 13(3A) in relation to the proof of age as adduced by him in oral partition between his mother and other brothers. The Rent Controller also found the requirement of the landlord to be bona fide and ordered eviction.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the landlord impugns every one of the lines of reasoning adopted by the Appellate Authority. On the finding relating to the entitlement of the partition to treat himself as a landlord, it is urged that there had been a registered partition under which the petition mentioned properties and other properties had been allotted to Kishan Lal' second wife Manbhawati and her children while certain other properties have been allotted to yet another wife of Kishan Lal and her children. As regards the property that fell to Manbhawati and her children, the mother in the petition herself come to the Court and deposed as AW -7 that the petition mentioned premises had been allotted to his son in oral partition. Yet another son of Manbhawati, Veer Bhan was examined as PW -8, who also deposed that the petition mentioned premises had been allotted to Sunil Kumar, the petitioner. The Appellate Authority was swayed by the fact that the mutation in the revenue records had been made after the death of Kishan Lal in the name of Manbhawati and therefore, the petitioner cannot treat himself as landlord. This finding is wholly erroneous if we consider the proof that is necessary in a rent control proceeding is no more than an entitlement of a person to collect the rent from the tenant. The tenant who had admitted the father, Kishan Lal, to be his landlord cannot insist that his widow Manbhawati alone is the landlord even after she gave evidence in Court that it was her son, Sunil Kumar, the petitioner who was the owner of the property to whom the rent shall be tendered. The tenant cannot have a choice in the manner of attainment when the person to whom he attributes the status as landlord herself gives evidence that yet another person namely her own son shall be treated as landlord. The extensive reasoning about ownership given by the Appellate Authority does not accord with requirements of law under the rent control proceedings. The finding rendered by the Appellate Authority on the abovesaid aspect is, therefore, set aside.