Ajit Singh vs Jaswant Singh

V.K. Jhanji, J.—This is landlord''s revision directed against the order of the Appellate Authority whereby the order of the Rent Controller was set aside and in consequence thereof ejectment petition filed by the landlord was dismissed.

Petitioner sought ejectment of the respondent on the ground of non-payment of rent. In the ejectment petition it was claimed that the respondent is occupying the premises as a tenant under them and prior thereto he was a tenant under their father on a rent of Rs. 80/- per month. It was also claimed that rent upto September, 1977, was paid by the respondent but thereafter he stopped paying rent and thus his ejectment was claimed on the ground of arrears of rent with effect from October, 1977. The respondent contested the application. In his written statement, he denied the relationship of landlord and tenant He, as a matter of fact, set up the ownership of the house in himself. It was claimed in the written statement that the site underneath the house was sold to him by Giani Hari Singh, father of the petitioners vide sale dated 4 12.1968 upon which he built the house. Petitioners filed replication to the written statement in which the averments made in the written statement were denied. It was also denied that the house was sold by their father to the respondent. Sale deed set up by the respondent was stated to be forged and fictitious document. Rent Controller, on appraisal of the evidence on record, found the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. As the respondent had not tendered rent on the first date of hearing, he was ordered to be ejected from the premises.

On appeal, the Appellate Authority set aside the order of the Rent Controller. The Appellate Authority, because of same discrepancy in the pleadings and the statement of one of the petitioners found that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. In consequence thereof, the ejectment petition was dismissed. This order is being challenged by the landlord in this revision.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this revision deserves to succeed.

A perusal of the record shows that one Shri Hari Singh son of phuman Singh purchased small plot from Giani Hari Singh, father of the petitioners somewhere in the year 1958. After purchase, he constructed the house in which the respondent was inducted as a tenant. Respondent continued to occupy that house for a few months and thereafter he shifted to the house in dispute. This was somewhere in 1962. Respondent, in his statement (RW-1) has admitted that he was occupying a house which was adjoining to the house in dispute for a few months. He also admitted that Hari Singh son of Phuman Singh sold the house which was earlier being occupied by the respondent to some other person from whom his sons purchased that house on 30-7-1976 vide Sale Deed, Ex A-1. Ex A-2 is site-plan which formed part of the Sale Deed, Ex.A-1. A perusal of Ex. A-2 shows that the house in dispute is shown to be adjoining to the house which was purchased by the sons of respondent. This very house once belonged to Hari Singh son of Phuman Singh under whom respondent was a tenant for a few months, Ex. A-2 also shows that the house now in occupation of the respondent is shown to be under ownership of petitioners. In case the property had been purchased by the respondent as claimed by him under the alleged Sale Deed dated 4-12-1968, then there was no reason as to why the property in occupation of the respondent was shown under the ownership of the petitioners. Rent Controller rightly did not take into consideration the Sale Deed dated 4-12 1968 This document is not a registered document and is scribed on a plain paper and total consideration is shown to be Rs. 90/-. The reason for sale given in the Sale Deed is that the father of the petitioners Giani Hari Singh required money for buying medicines This reason apparently is false as it has come on the record as Well as in the cross-examination of the respondent that Giani Hari Singh owned almost half the village and at the time of his death, he was the owner of nearly 100 Bighas of land There is no convincing evidence on record that the house was constructed by the respondent in the year 1962 as claimed by him Sale Deed is dated 4-12-1258 whereas the house is claimed to have been constructed! by the respondent in the year 1962. I fail to understand how he could have constructed the house without having bought the site from Giani Hari Singh who was the owner of the same. There is no writing of the year 962. Giani Hari Singh died in the year 1971. On his death, petitioners became the owner of the property and thus they stepped into the shoes of their father. Respondent has himself admitted in his statement that Giani Hari Singh was the owner of the site in dispute. Petitioners thus have successfully proved that they are the owners of the property in dispute. Petitioners in their pediton have claimed that the tenant had been paying reat @ Rs. 80/- per month and in his statement as AW-1 has also so stated AW-5 Hari Singh son of Phuman Singh who was the owner of the adjoining house in which the respondent was staying for a few months before shifting to the house in dispute, has also supported the case of the petitioners AW-2 Charan Singh, neighbourer, AW-3 Ram Kunjar, a shopkeeper in the neighbourhood, Jagdish Chander, AW 4, Sarpanch of the village and Prem Singh, AW-6, Member Panchayat, have all supported the case of the petitioners and have stated in their statements in Court that the respondent was paying rent earlier to Giani Hari Singh and thereafter to his son, Jaswant Singh. The discrepancy as pointed out by the Appellate Authority in the pleadings and the statements of the petitioners with regard to the year in which the respondent became tenant of the petitioners, is of no consequence. Simply because the petitioners in their pleadings have stated that they are the landlords since 1957 is not enough to conclude that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The Appellant Authority has erred in drawing an adverse inference against the petitioners for non production of an entry relating to house-tax assessment. Such an entry can never be considered to be conclusive to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant. It can only be a circumstance. The petitioners have brought on record voluminous evidence to prove the ownership as well as relationship of landlord and tenant between them and the respondent. Therefore, non production of an entry from assessment register is not fatal. As already noticed above, the respondent never tendered or paid the arrears of rent as claimed by the landlords in the ejectment petition. As such the respondent is liable to be ejected on the ground of non-payment of rent

As a result thereof, this civil revision is allowed, the order of the Appellate Authority is set aside and that of the Rent Controller is restored with no order as to costs.

However, the respondent is allowed three months'' time to vacate the premises provided he pays/deposits the entire arrears of rent including that of three months with the Rent Controller within a period of one month from today and also files an undertaking to the effect that on the expiry of three months, he shall hand over the vacant possession to the landlord The undertaking is also to be filed within one month from today.