GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. DEVKI NANDAN AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act and is directed against the order of the appellate authority affirming on appeal the decision of the Rent Controller ordering the eviction of Gurcharan Singh. On facts there is practically no dispute. The premises in dispute were evacuee property and were allotted to Gurcharan Singh. These premises were purchased in auction by the Respondent Devki Nandan, and the sale certificate was granted to him. The auction took place on 28th June, 1961. The sale was confirmed on 9th October, 1961 but sale certificate was issued on the 25th May, 1965. It confirmed title on Devki Nandan with effect from 1st August, 1984. The present application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act was filed on 28th June, 1966, against Gurcharan Singh. Ejectment was claimed on two grounds namely:

(2.) THE Rent Controller found that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, that no notice was required as contemplated by Section 29 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, that the rate of rent was Rs. 10 p.m., that Gurcharan Singh Phoola Singh were joint tenants and that the tenants were liable to eviction on both the grounds taken in the petition. It was found as a fact that the tenant was in arrears of rent and that the landlord required the premises for his personal use. The appeal against this decision to the appellate authority met with no success. The tenant who is dissatisfied with the order of the appellate authority, has come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) THE foremost contention of the learned Counsel for the tenant is that the provisions of Section 29 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, do not apply and that the position of the so called tenant was that of an allottee and according to the definition of 'allottee' in the Administration of Evacuee Properly Act, under which allotment was made, he is not a lessee. It is maintained that the position of the Petitioner is merely that of a licensee and as such the Rent Court has no jurisdiction to pass an order of eviction under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. The matter must be taken to the civil Court. This contention is controverted by the learned Counsel for the Respondent landlord. It is urged that even though the provisions of section 29 do not apply to the Petitioner, still the Petitioner is a tenant within the meaning of Section 2(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. There is no dispute now that the so -called tenant is in arrears of rent and the rent has not been paid and that the landlord requires the premises for his personal use. The controversy is narrowed down to the question whether the position of the Petitioner is that of a tenant or not, because if the position is that of a tenant, undoubtedly, the order of the Rent Controller and the appellate authority will prevail. So far as the position of the Petitioner is concerned it appears to me that the contention of Mr. Sachar is sound and must prevail.