Sohan Singh vs Shrimati Charanjit Kaur and anothers

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is tenant''s petition against whom ejectment application was dismissed by the trial court but eviction was ordered in appeal.

The landlady Smt. Charanjit Kaur sought the ejectment of his tenant Sohan Singh from the demised premises on the ground of nonpayment of arrears of rent w.e.f. 1st May, 1970; at the rate of Rs. 7/- p.m. The ejectment application was filed on 4th October, 1976. The tenant in his written statement denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The Rent Controller found that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, and, therefore, dismissed the ejectment application. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that "the Respondent is, thus, established to be the tenant of vacant site in dispute under the applicant. The oral evidence of the Respondent witness Sewa Singh RW 2, Inder Singh RW 3 can be given no value while there is the admission of the Respondent regarding the agreement to purchase this site from Charanjit Kaur Ex. PS and the rent note executed by him in favour of the applicant Ex. A1. The Rent Controller has not properly appreciated the evidence on the record." Consequently, the eviction was ordered.

During pendency of this petition, the landlord died. Vide order dated 13th July 1989, Smt. Balwant Kaur, the daughter of the deceased, and Gurdarshanjit Singh were brought on record as her legal representatives on the basis of will dated 20th November 1985 (Copy filed along with the application).

According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, and, therefore, the learned Rent Controller had rightly dismissed the ejectment application, and that the view taken by the appellate authority in this behalf was wholly wrong and illegal

After hearing the learned Counsel and going through the record lam of the considered view that there is no illegality or impropriety the impugned order so as to be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. It is admitted by the Petitioner himself that Ex. PS an agreement of sale was executed in his favour on behalf of the landlady in which it was admitted that she was the owner of the demised premises. The tenant Sohan Singh appeared as RW 1. He admitted in cross-examination that "the thumb mark P S on the agreement is mine and the agreement is dated 10th March, 1974." Once that is admitted it becomes immaterial whether he executed the rent note Ex. A1 or not. The question of entering into agreement of said could not arise unless the landlady was admitted to be the owner of the demised premises.

Since the arrears of rent were never paid by the tenant, the eviction order has been rightly passed by the appellate authority. Consequently the petition fails and is dismissed with costs.

Since the Petitioner is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1st May, 1970, he is not entitled to any time for vacating the premises. In any case, if the arrears from the said date are paid up to date within one month along with interest thereon @ 12% p.a., he may be allowed three months time to vacate the premises provided he gives an undertaking before the Rent Controller within one month that after the expiry of one month he shall hand over vacant possession to the Respondents.