PURO Vs. RAM DAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by Shrimati Puro against the judgment of the Appellate Authority Ludhiana dated January 16, 1974.

(2.) Briefly, the facts are that Shrimati Ram Dai is the owner of the house. It is alleged that : she gave it on lease to Shrimati Puro on a monthly rent of Rs. 30, she filed an application for ejectment on the ground that Shrimati Puro respondent had not paid the rent and that she required the premises for her own use and occupation. The application was contested by Shrimati Puro. She denied that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. She further pleaded that her husband Rawal had taken the house on lease. In view of the plea of Shrimati Puro, the landlady filed an application for amendment of the petition to the effect that Rawal be impleaded as a respondent. The learned Rent Controller allowed the amendment of the petition for ejectment. Consequently, Rawal was also made a respondent. Both the respondents contested the petition and denied that Shrimati Ram Dai was the landlady. They also denied that she required the premises for her own use and occupation.

(3.) The Rent Controller held that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between Shrimati Ram Dai and Shrimati Puro. He also held that she required the premises for her bonafide use and occupation. Consequently he ordered ejectment of the respondents. Shrimati Puro went up in appeal before the Appellate Authority. The learned Appellate Authority affirmed the finding that Shrimati Puro was a tenant under Ram Dai. It, however, reversed the finding that Shrimati Ram Dai required the property bonafide for her own use and occupation it further held that the rent had not been paid by Shrimati Puro and therefore, she was liable to ejectment. It also came to the conclusion that Rawal was not liable to be ejected as he was not a tenant. In view of the abovesaid observation, it partly accepted the appeal and ordered ejectment of Shrimati Puro alone. Shrimati Puro has come up in revision against the order of the Appellate Authority to this Court.