Darshan Singh and Others vs Shri Gurdip Singh Chawla

J.V. Gupta, J.—The tenant-petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority dated September 27, 1977 whereby the order of the Rent Controller directing his ejectment was maintained.

The landlord-respondent Gurdip Singh sought the ejectment of his tenant Darshan Singh from the premises in dispute which consists of three rooms, one court-yard on the ground floor and three rooms, one kitchen and a verandah on the first floor, on the ground of non-payment of rent and subletting by the tenant Darshan Singh to Santokh Singh and another without the written consent of the landlord and for his personal use and occupation. It was stated in the ejectment application that earlier one Lal Chand was the owner of the property under whom Darshan Singh was the tenant. The said Lal Chand died on December 10, 1972 and later on his heirs and legal representatives sold the house to Gurdip Singh landlord vide registered sale deed dated May 3, 1973. A registered notice from the Advocate was also given to Darshan Singh tenant informing him that the house has been purchased by Gurdip Singh and henceforth the rent be paid to him. In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant Darshan Singh it was contended that Lal Chand was not the owner of the house, in fact, his father Kahan Singh was in possession of this house as its owner. It was further contended that respondents Nos. 2 to 4 (the alleged sub tenants) had inherited this house from their father alongwith Ram Piari and Mohinder Kaur and they are in possession of the house in dispute as its owners. On the pleadings of the parties the Rent Controller framed the following issues:-

Whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the applicant and respondent No 1?

Whether the applicant requires the house for his personal use and occupation?

Whether respondent No. 1 has sublet the house to respondent No. 2 to 4 as alleged?

The Rent Controller allowed the ejectment application as it came to the conclusion that there is relationship of landlord and tenant and that the landlord required the house for his own use and occupation. In appeal these findings of the Rent Controller have been affirmed by the Appellate Authority. Feeling aggrieved against this order the tenants have come up in revision in this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there is no evidence on the record to prove that Lal Chand was the owner of the house in dispute. According to the learned counsel if Lal Chand is not proved to be the owner of the house, then Gurdip Singh cannot claim himself to be the landlord. He further contended that mere entries in the assessment register maintained by the Municipal Committee to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant is not sufficient. In support of this contention he referred to Jagan Nath v. Shrimati Shanti Devi (1976) 78 P.L.R. 158.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this petition. It has been concurrently found by both the authorities below that it has been concurrently found by both the authorities below that it has been conclusively established that Lal Chand was the landlord whereas Darshan Singh was a tenant under him. After the death of Lai Chand on December 10, 1072, his heirs had sold the house to Gurdip Singh vide sale deed Ex. A3 dated May 2, 1953 for Rs. 0,000/-. This finding is not based on the entries in the assessment register alone but on certain admissions made by Darshan Singh and his brother Santokh Singh. Darshan Singh submitted site plan Ex. A6 for the water connection to the Municipal Committee and that site plan was prepared by Davinder Singh draftsman AW 6. In that plan Darshan Singh had clearly shown Lal Chand to be the owner of the house in dispute and had signed himself as a tenant. Similarly, in the affidavit Ex. A7 by Santokh Singh duly attested by the Executive Magistrate, it is stated that Ram Lal had agreed to sell house No. 11/236, which is the house in dispute, for Rs. 19,000/- and orally he had paid Rs. 100/- to them through Shri Didar Singh property dealer It was from the said evidence that the Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that Lal Chand deceased had been proved to be original owner of the house in dispute and Darshan Singh to be tenant under him.

Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out any illegality or infirmity as to be interfered with in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

Consequently, this petition fails and is dismissed with costs. However, the petitioners are allowed two months time to vacate the premises provided all the arrears up-to-date and the advance rent for two months is deposited with the Rent Controller within a month from today.