AMARJIT SINGH Vs. RANJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority, Jullundur, whereby he accepted the appeal filed by the landlords and ordered ejectment of the tenant from the demised premises. Respondents 1 and 2 husband and wife, respectively (for short 'the landlords') filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, against Kulwinder Singh, Amarjit Singh and Dalip Singh for ejectment from the demised premises on the ground that they had purchased the demised premises through sale-deeds dated January 25, 1985 and March 20, 1985. They were living in the house of wife's parents as licensee for want of any residential accommodation of their own and they intended to take up residence in the demised premises. Mohinder Singh, father of Kulwinder Singh, was the original tenant. On the death of Mohinder Singh, Kulwinder Singh entered into possession of the demised premises and became a tenant under the landlord and he continued to pay rent at the of Rs. 72/- per month and thereafter he shifted his residence to a house, previously owned by Ramji Dass Vakil. Kulwinder Singh was in arrears of rent from January 20, 1985 and he had sublet the premises to Respondents 2 and 3, namely, Amarjit Singh and Dalip Singh without the written consent of the landlords as well as of their predecessor-in-interest.

(2.) KULWINDER Singh and Dalip Singh, the alleged sub-tenants, did not contest the application and were proceeded against ex parte and the contest was offered only by Amarjit Singh, who was arrayed as Respondent No. 2, hereinafter to be referred to as the tenant. He took the plea that Tarlok Singh, father of Amarjit Singh, Surinder Singh and Mohinder Singh, was the original tenant. Mohinder Singh, father of Respondent No. 1, namely, Kulwinder Singh, shifted to his house during the lifetime of Tarlok Singh. After the death of Tarlok Singh, his tenancy rights were inherited by Amarjit Singh, Dalip Singh, Surinder Singh and his widow Kartar Kaur. They were the direct tenants under the landlord. He also pleaded that Surinder Singh and Kartar Kaur are necessary parties to the petition. It was also pleaded that if it was not proved that they were not the tenants in the demised premises, then they had perfected their title by adverse possession. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-

(3.) THE learned Appellate Authority, after appraising the entire evidence, gave a firm finding that the demised premises are bonafide required by the landlords for their occupation. I do not find any irregularity in the appreciation of the evidence and in fact none was pointed out. I uphold the same. The learned counsel for the tenant-contesting respondent mainly stressed the plea that the landlords are residing in the house of their in-laws an they have got a legal right to stay in that house. The plea is not sustainable in law. Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act on which strong reliance has been placed by him is of no assistance to him. It only postulates that a dwelling unit in occupation of a male Hindu who is survived by male and female heirs specified in clause (1) of the Schedule, is not liable to partition at the instance of the female heir and the female heir if she is a daughter and unmarried is entitled to residence in the dwelling house. Admittedly, the landlords have no legal right to stay in the house which belonged to wife's father. I am satisfied from the evidence on record that their need is genuine. Consequently, the order under challenge is maintained. The revision petition is dismissed.