RENU DHIR Vs. GURCHARANJIT KAUR WALIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar, dated 24.1.1997 and that of the Appellate Authority, Jalandhar, dated 15.9.1998. The learned Rent Controller, had allowed the eviction application filed by respondent Smt. Gurcharanjit Kaur Walia and passed an order of eviction against the petitioner Smt. Renu Dhir. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Hence, the present revision petition.

(2.) The relevant facts are that respondent filed an application for eviction alleging that the petitioner is a tenant in the suit premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 1400/-. An agreement was executed on 29.3.1989. It was agreed between the parties that the petitioner will deduct Rs. 500/- per month from the total rent of Rs. 1400/- to adjust the advance amount of Rs. 15,000/- paid by the petitioner. After three years, the petitioner was to hand over the vacant possession of the property to the respondent. If the petitioner does not do so, then she will pay Rs. 100/- per day for use and occupation of the property. Eviction was sought on the ground of non-payment of rent. It was contended that Rs. 27,500/- is due upto 31.3.1992 after deducting the amount of Rs. 10,500/- and from 1.4.1992 at the rate of Rs. 3000/- per mensum. The other ground of eviction taken up was that the respondent bona fide required the demised premises for her own use.

(3.) In the written statement filed, the petitioner contested the application. It was asserted that there was no relationship of landlady and tenant between the parties, therefore, the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to proceed with the eviction application According to the petitioner, subsequently respondent, had asked for more advance of Rs. 35,000/- from her husband. Another document was executed. The husband of the petitioner was taken as a tenant. Tenancy was created in his favour from 1.5.1989. Thus, it was contended that the petition as such was not maintainable and in any case the arrears were not due as claimed.