LAWS(P&H)-1979-12-27

UMAID ALI KHAN Vs. YAKUB HUSSAIN

Decided On December 13, 1979
Umaid Ali Khan Appellant
V/S
Yakub Hussain Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the Harbans Lal, order of the Appellate Authority under the Rent Restriction Act whereby the eviction application by the landlord petitioner was dismissed.

(2.) The petitioner claimed to be Mutwali of Dargah Hafiz Ghulanm Kadir Sahib on Nakodar Road, Jullundur According to the eviction application four Varandahs (hereinafter called the demised premises) were taken by the respondent on lease at the rate of Rs. 100.00 per mensem and that the rent from March, 1966 up to the date of filing of the petition, had not been paid. A number of other contentions were also raised which need not be noticed for the purpose of disposal of this case. In reply the respondent denied tie relationship of landlord and tenant it was further averred that the demised premises had been taken on lease by him from the Wakf Board and that the petitioner had nothing to do with the said property in view of the pleadings a number of issues were framed. It was held by the Rent Controller that the petitioner was proved to he the landlord of the demised premises. It was also held that the respondent was not proved to be in arrears of rent for any period, therefore, the eviction petition was dismissed. The appeal filed by the petitioner also met with the same fate. This order of the Appellate Authority has teen challenged in the present revision petition.

(3.) The petitioner did it of appear as a witness to prove his case. Reliance was only placed on the notice sent by him to the respondent before tiling the eviction petition in which it had been alleged that the respondent was the tenant on the demised premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 100.00 and that the rent with effect from March, 1966 had not been paid Copy of this notice is Ex A. 2. In reply (Ex. A. 3) the respondent denied his tenancy from the petitioner on the demised premises referred to in the notice. It was also averred that five rooms had been taken on rent from the petitioner for which rent up-to-date had been paid. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that as the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the relationship of landlord and tenant had been proved between the parties and the respondent had not claimed any Payment of rent relating thereto, the case of the petitioner clearly stood established. It was also contented that the finding regarding relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties by the Rent Controller was neither challenged by the respondent before the Appellate Authority nor was reversed.