HARISH CHANDER Vs. MANJIT SINGH GULATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner-tenant has preferred this revision petition challenging order dtd. 16/9/2015 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana as well as judgment dtd. 28/8/2017 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, whereby his ejectment from the demised premises has been ordered.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the case are that, respondents-landlords filed a petition under Sec. 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, the 'Act') seeking eviction of the present petitioner from the demised premises, as described in the petition. It is pleaded that Rajinder Singh and Kulwinder Singh were the original owners of the demised premises. Respondent No.l in the present petition, purchased the property in December 2002 from said Rajinder Singh and Kulwinder Singh, through property dealers, namely, Som Nath and Bajrangi Lai. The consideration amount was paid to the owners. An agreement in respect to the full and final payment was also executed in favour of respondent No.l. General power of attorney was executed in favour of respondent no.l, who is husband of respondent No.2. Sale-deed dtd. 15/1/2010 was executed by respondent No.l in favour of his wife, respondent No.2. Mutation of the property was duly sanctioned. Present petitioner is stated to be the tenant in the property in question. Petitioner-tenant is pleaded to have taken the premises from Rajinder Singh and Kulwinder Singh on a monthly rent of Rs.3,500.00, besides, electricity and water charges. Present petitioner acknowledged the respondents to be his landlords and started paying rent at the rate of Rs.3,500.00 per month, besides, electricity and water charges. However, the petitioner is claimed to be in arrears of rent since 1/12/2005. Ejectment of the petitioner was sought on account of non-payment of arrears of rent as well as personal bonafide necessity of the landlords, as respondent No.l sought to open a clinic at the tenanted premises. It is further stated that they did not own or possess any other non-residential premises within the municipal limits of Ludhiana. Legal notice dtd. 12/5/2011 was served upon the petitioner, but to no avail. Hence, the petition was filed.

(3.) Petitioner resisted the petition. In his written statement, the petitioner took various preliminary objections. Relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was denied. The petitioner claimed to be the owner-in-possession of the demised premises on the basis of an agreement to sell, purportedly executed between the present parties in the year 2004 for a total consideration of Rs.1,50,000.00. The present petitioner, it is submitted, paid a sum of Rs.96,000.00 as earnest money at the time of execution of the said agreement to sell and possession of the property was delivered to him in part performance of the agreement to sell. The petitioner claimed to have installed an electric and water connection in the property after taking possession. Remaining amount of Rs.54,000.00 was paid by the present petitioner in installments to the respondents in this case. However, no receipt in this respect was issued. The respondents alongwith other persons are alleged to have trespassed into the house, beaten up the present petitioner and his family members and stolen the agreement to sell executed between the parties alongwith other valuables. Dismissal of the petition was prayed for.