BIMLA RANI Vs. SHRI NAND LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by Smt. Bimla Rani, alleged tenant, against the order of the Rent Controller, Ambala, dated July 15, 1977.

(2.) Briefly the case of Nand Lal is that he gave the property in dispute on lease to Smt. Bimla Rani at the rate of Rs. 140/- p.m. He filed the application for ejectment on non-payment of rent. Smt. Bimla Rani contested the application and pleaded that she was in possession of the building in part performance of the agreement of the sale dated March 4, 1976. The Rent Controller on the first date of hearing held that Smt. Bimla Rani was a tenant and was liable to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 140/- p.m. He also fixed Rs. 94/- as interest and Rs. 30/- as costs of the application. He directed her to pay Rs. 2084/- as arrears of rent, costs and interest by July 29, 1977, and consequently adjourned the case for that date i.e. July 29, 1977. Smt. Bimla Rani filed a revision against the order of the Rent Controller to the Financial Commissioner, Haryana. The jurisdiction for hearing revisions under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, at the time vested in him. Later on the jurisdiction had been taken away from the Financial Commissioner and has been conferred on this Court. Consequently this case was transferred from the Financial Commissioner to this Court.

(3.) The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Rent Controller gave a finding that the petitioner was a tenant under the respondent without giving the parties an opportunity to leading evidence. He submits that as the petitioner had denied that she was a tenant under the respondent, it was incumbent upon the Rent Controller to have decided the mater after recording the evidence of the parties. I find force in the contention of the learned counsel. As stated above, the case of the petitioner is that she was in possession of the building in part performance of an agreement of sale. She denied that she was tenant under the respondent. In the circumstances it became the duty of the Rent Controller to have allowed the parties to lead evidence and thereafter to decide the matter. The order is consequently illegal and liable to be set aside.