Jai Lal vs Kishore Kumar

D.V. Sehgal, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order dated 16-10-1979 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Karnal, u/s 15(4) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short the Act) whereby the appeal filed by the tenant respondent against an order of his eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller vide judgment dated 14-5-1979 has been allowed. The landlord petitioner being aggrieved against the same has filed the present revition petition.

The petitioner filed an application u/s 13 of the Act for the ejectment of the respondent from the premises in dispute claiming that the later was a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 50/- and that he had failed to pay the rent of the premises. Some other grounds for ejectment of the respondent were also put forward but the same were given up in view of the written statement filed by the respondent. The respondent controuerted the allegations that be is a tenant under the petitioner. He averred in his written statement that his uncle is the tenant in the premises and he is living with him only as a licensee. He did not tender any rent on the first date of hearing. The matter which was, therefore, put to issue was whether there is a relationship between the landlord and tenant between the parties. The learned Rent Controller returned a finding in favour of the petitioner and consequently ordered ejectment of the respondent from the premises in dispute. The Appellate Authority, however, reversed this finding on an appeal filed by the respondent and dismissed the ejectment application of the petitioner. This is how the present revision petition has been filed by the landlord petitioner in this Court.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the Rent Controller including the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record.

The uncle of the respondent whom he alleged to be the tenant under the petitioner is Shri M.D. Khullar who defended the case on his behalf as a special attorney. The case as set up by the petitioner was that the premises was let out to the respondent in the month of January/February, 1973 at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month. There is no rent note executed by the respondent. The oral evidence in the form of the statement of Suresh Chand A.W. 1 was relied on. He stated that he is a neighbour of the petitioner. One day the respondent was in search of a house and met him and at his request he took him to the petitioner and had the premises rented out to him at Rs. 50/- per month. According to him the tenancy was created in January or February, 1973. He further deposed that it was winter season then. The special attorney of the respondent appeared in the witness-box and deposed that he himself is the tenant in the premises much prior to January, 1973. He produced on the record documents RX, RY and RZ. these documents originally were not admitted into evidence. The respondent, therefore, filed a revision petition in the High Court which was disposed of by order dated 20-3-1978 wherein it was observed thus:-

It is not necessary to deal with this revision on merits because the learned counsel for the respondent has agreed that these documents may be exhibited without a formal proof. In view of this concession, the rent Controller is directed to accept these documents in evidence and exhibit them without a formal proof.

In spite of the above order of this Court, the learned Rent Controller ruled these documents out of evidence on the ground that the same has not belen proved in accordance with Jaw. The learned Appellate Authority, however, has rightly observed that in view of the above order of this Court, the documents were to be read in evidence as being duly proved on the record and no formal proof was necessary. Now dilating on these documents, it has been found that letter Exhibit RX is dated 23-1-1973 and it is addressed to the respondent at the demised premises It is a letter from the Life Insurance Corporation of India and makes reference to the previous letter dated 8-10-1971 on 5-7-1972, of the letter dated 5-7-1972 placed on the file is also addressed to the appellant at the demised premises. This amply shows that even in the month of July, 1972, the respondent was residing in the premises in dispute. Taking into account the above documents along with the statement of Shri M.D. Khullar, the learned Appellate Authority has rightly held that the case set up by the petitioner that he had let out the premises in dispute to the respondent in January, 1973 has not been proved.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that when the respondent is living in the premises in dispute, it is to be presumed that he is living as a tenant because he has not been able to prove in what other capacity he is in occupation of the same. This plea has no force. Shri M.D. Khullar, uncle of the respondent, who is also his special attorney while appearing in the witness box, has categorically stated that he himself is the tenant under the petitioner and the respondent is Jiving with him. Thus the finding of the learned Appellate Authority that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is unexceptionable. In view of the above discussion. I find no force in this revision petition which is consequently dismissed. The parties, however, are left to bear their own costs.