Balwant Singh vs Harbhajan Singh

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is landlord''s petition whose eviction was allowed fey the Rent Controller, but was dismissed in appeal.

The landlord sought the ejectment of his tenant Harbhajan Singh, Respondent, from the premises, in dispute, on the allegations that the same were given to him on rent at the rate of Fs. per month by way of oral agreement by delivery of possession thereof on December 16, 1961; the tenant did not execute any rent rote and, therefore, the tenancy remained oral. His ejectment was sought inter alia on the grounds of non-payment of the arrears of rent and that he (the landlord), required the premises for his own use and occupation. In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant, the allegations made in the eviction application were denied. It was specifically pleaded that he was never inducted as a tenant. In the demitted premises by the landlord and that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between them. It was further pleaded that he was in possession of the premises for more than 35 years. The learned Rent Controller found that there was the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that since no arrears of rent were tendered on the first date of hearing, the tenant was liable to be ejected from the premises. Consequently, the eviction petition was allowed and the eviction order was passed against the tenant. In appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties and the landlord had, thus, no locus standi to file the ejectment petition. As a result, the ejectment petition was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord has filed this revision petition in this Court.

The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that from the documentary evidence on the record; particularly the gift deed dated August 19. 1941, copy Exhibit AW-6/1, it was amply proved that the landlord was the owner of the demised premises and he being the owner thereof, was entitled to receive the rent from the tenant. According to the Learned Counsel, the learned Rent Controller had rightly found that there existed the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, but the said finding has been reversed arbitrarily and whimsically by the Appellate Authority which is against the documentary evidence on the record.

After hearing the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, I do not find any merit in this petition. The Petitioner came with the specific plea that the tenant was inducted by him on December 16, 1961 orally on a monthly rent of Rs. 9/ per month. This, he failed to prove by any cogent evidence Once it is so found, then whether Balwant Singh, Petitioner, had become the owner of the demised premises by virtue of the gift-deed, a copy of which is. Exhibit A.W-6/1, or not, are the questions to be decided by a competent civil Courts. Those matters could not be decided in the ejectment proceedings. In there proceedings, the authorities are primarily concerned as to the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties which the landlord has failed to prove in the present case by any cogent evidence. Any other finding given by the authorities below will be of no consequence as it will always be subject to the decision by the civil Court. As observed earlier, it will be open to the landlord to establish his title in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction and, thus, claim dispossession of the Respondent in accordance with law.

In this view of the matter, the revision petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Revision petition dismissed.