Lakhbir Singh vs Gian Chand Kalmotian

V.S. Aggarwal, J.—The present revision has been fried by Lakbir Singh, hereinafter described as "The Petitioner" against the order of the learned Rent Controller, Ferozepur, dated 14.8.1980 and that of the learned Appellate Authority, Ferozepur, dated 26.9.1981. The learned Rent Controller had dismissed the petition for eviction and the appeal filed before the learned Appellate Authority.

The relevant facts are that the eviction petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging that the respondent is a tenant of the petitioner with respect to the property in dispute and has not paid the arrears of rent since December, 1975, at the rate of Rs. 16/- per month besides house tax of Rs. 25/- per annum. It was further asserted that the petitioner is residing in one room along with his mother and members of the family. The said accommodation is totally insufficient for him.

The eviction petition had been contested by the respondent. It was alleged that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The petitioner was stated to be not the son of Mehboob Chand and thus has no locus standi to file the petition. Thus, the petitioner was stated to be not entitled to any rent. Even on merits, it was denied that the petitioner requires the property for himself and members of his family.

In there joinder that was filed, the petitioner, reiterated the grounds of eviction and insisted that he was the landlord of the property. As per the petitioner, he was lawfully adopted by Mehboob Chand, since deceased, and, therefore, has become the landlord of the property.

The learned Rent Controller held that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The petitioner has failed to prove that he was the adopted son of Mehboob Chand and consequently dismissed the eviction petition. As referred to above, appeal filed by the petitioner failed or in other words, the said finding of the learned Rent Controller, were approved. Hence, the present revision petition.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assailed the finding of the learned Rent Controller and the learned Appellate Authority primarily on the ground that they fell into error in not acting on the receipts issued by the petitioner which clearly shows that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. According to him, the receipts clearly shows that respondent has accepted the petitioner as his landlord and has been paying rent to him.

The said contention of the learned counsel in the peculiar facts of the present case, indeed, must fail. Here concurrent findings had been arrived by the learned Rent Controller and the learned Appellate Authority that the petitioner is not the adopted son of deceased Mehboob Chand and, therefore, he could not be the landlord of the property. Under sub-section (5) to Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short "the Act"). High Court will only interfere if there is misreading of evidence or the conclusion arrived at are absurd. This is so because only the legality and propriety of the order impugned is to be seen. In normal circumstances, this Court, therefore, will not reappraise the evidence. Herein evidence has been appraised and a particular finding had been arrived at. Therefore, this court is not competent to upset the same particularly when it is not shown that the finding is contrary to law or there is any misreading of evidence.

It is true that certain receipts purported to be signed by the respondent had been produced. But strangely enough, the same were not put to the respondent when the respondent appeared as a witness. Therefore, the learned Rent Controller and the learned Appellate Authority rightly did not think it appropriate to act on the said receipts.

Earlier, admittedly, Mehboob Chand, was the landlord. Petitioners claim was that after his death, since he is the adopted son of Mehboob Chand, he has become the landlord. Petitioners own witness Bagga Singh. AW2, has stated that he does not know the relationship of the petitioner with Mehboob Chand. The onus lay heavily on the petitioner to establish that he is the adopted son of Mehboob Chand. Not only there is no adoption deed but evidence even was lacking that from long conduct it could be inferred that the petitioner was and believed to be the adopted son of Mahboob Chand. The evidence was lacking as to when adoption took place and who were the persons who could depose in this regard. It was in this background that it was rightly held that the petitioner failed to establish that he is the adopted son of Mehboob Chand. He could not, thus, become the landlord. There is no ground to interfere.

For these reasons, the revision petition being without merit must fail and is accordingly dismissed.