Hans Raj vs M/s Raj Iron Store

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is landlord''s revision petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below.

Hans Raj Petitioner claiming himself to be the landlord of the premises, in dispute, filed the ejectment application on April 5, 1973, on the allegations that he was the owner of the premises. He had authorized his real brother Vidya Parkash to manage the property as he himself was not residing at Ludhiana. Vidya Parkash let out the premises, in dispute, vide rent note, Exhibit R.W.2/2, dated November 11, 1960, to Rajinder Singh. The said Vidya Parkash died in the year 1967. After his death, Hans Raj, Petitioner, being his brother and also being the owner of the property, was entitled to move the ejectment application. The ejectment was sought on the grounds that the tenant was in arrears of rent from the year 1967 and that he had materially impaired the value and utility of the premises. In the written statement, the tenant pleaded that the premises were let out to him by Vidya Parkash who was the landlord and that after his death, his widow had been realizing the rent from him. Therefore, there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. According to him, the rent had already been paid upto the end of September, 1973 and that no damage had been caused to the premises, as alleged. The learned Rent Controller, after discussing the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that the Petitioner Hans Raj had failed to prove that the Respondent was ever a tenant under him. In view of the said finding, the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said finding of the Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the order dismissing the ejectment application.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that Hans Raj, Petitioner, being the owner of the demised premises, will be deemed to be the landlord after the death of Vidya Parkash as well. Even if the tenant was inducted by Vidya Parkash vide rent note, Exhibit R.W.2/2 dated November 11, 1960, Hans Raj, being the owner of the premises, was entitled to maintain the ejectment application and, thus, he relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was duly established. According to the learned Counsel, Vidaya Parkash himself had admitted in the earlier written statement filed by him, Exhibit A. 12, that Hans Raj was the owner of the demised premises. Thus, argued the learned Counsel, Hans Raj being the owner of the demised premises will also be the landlord and, thus, the relationship of landlord and tenant was duly proved between the parties.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the relevant evidence on the record, I do not find any impropriety or illegality in the concurrent findings of the authorities below.

Admittedly, the tenant was inducted by Vidya Parkash in the demised premises vide rent note, Exhibit R. W. 2/2. He died in the year 1967. Till then, he had been realizing the rent. After his death, his widow has been realizing the rent as claimed by the tenant. In any case, at no stage, Vidya Parkash intimated to the tenant that he was not the owner of the demised premises. The admission of Vidya Parkash, Exhibit A. 12, in this behalf was of no consequence, as the tenant was not a party thereto. Moreover, there was no occasion for Vidya Parkash to make such an admission in the year 1964 when the premises were already let out by him to the tenant. However, it may be made clear that the tenant never claimed himself to be the owner of the demised property. His claim even in this Court is that he is a tenant on the demised premises and the only person who is the owner of the property after the death of Vidya Parkash will be entitled to claim his ejectment in accordance with law.

Under the circumstances, this revision petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.