LAWS(P&H)-1989-5-163

CHAN PARKASH Vs. TARA SINGH

Decided On May 19, 1989
Chan Parkash Appellant
V/S
TARA SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point in issue in revision here is whether there exists the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties so as to render the respondent Tara Singh liable thereby to ejectment at the instance of the petitioner Chan Parkash under the provisions of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act')

(2.) The property, in respect of which the parties are litigating is House 4940 in Mohalla Pallendaran, Saddar Bazar, Ambala Cantt. This was an evacuee property which had been allotted by the Custodian to Tara Singh on payment of Rs. 4/- per month. It stands established from the material on record that vide sanad exhibit P/1. this property stands duly conveyed in favour of the petitioner Chan Parkash since October, 1983. Chan Parkash is thus the owner while Tara Singh has continued in possession ever since.

(3.) Both the Rent Controller as also the appellate authority have returned concurrent findings to the effect that the petitioner Chan Parkash bona fide required the premises for his own use and occupation. The correctness of this finding has not been questioned in revision. While the Rent Controller ordered the ejectment of Tara Singh, on this ground, namely for pecrsonal necessity, the appellate authority denied it holding that Tara Singh being an allotee under the Custodian, the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties and therefore, Tara Singh could not be ejected under the provisions of the Act. Relied upon in this behalf being the judgment of D.K. Mahajan, J. in Gurcharan Singh V/s. Devki Nandan and another, 1970 72 PunLR 651, where it was observed, "There is no dispute that the possession of an allottee is merely that of a licensee and he does not enjoy any rights over and above those that are enjoyed by a mere licensee." This was later followed by two other authorities which were also noticed by the appellate authority, namely, Harnam Singh and anr. V/s. Smt. Kaushalva Devi and anr., 1980 2 RCR(Rent) 159 and Smt. Shankuntla of Jagadhri V/s. B.D. Barisal,1984 HRR 14.