Tilak Raj vs Shrimati Kailash Wati and Another

S.S. Sodhi, J.—The impugned order of the appellate authority up-holding the eviction of the petitioner as directed by the rent controller, on the ground of nonpayment of arrears of rent and sub-letting, warrants no interference in revision.

The entire case of the petitioner rests upon his plea setting up his own title over the demised shop. ''

It is the common ease of the parties that the shop was originally owned by Bawa Inderjit Singh, who, on April 5, 1989 mortgaged it with possesion to Lal Chand vide mortgage deed exhibit R/3. According to the petitioner, the said Bawa Inderjit Singh sold this shop to him by registered sale deed on May 26, 1975 and he thereby became the owner thereof. Point reference was made to the term in the sale deed to the effect that it would be the liability of the petitioner to pay off the mortgage of Lal Chand.

According to the respondent Kailash Vati, on the other hand Bawa Inderjit Singh sold the equity of redemption to the said Lal Chand on March 10, 1953 and thereby Ial Chand became full owner thereof. Mark AB being the document evidencing the sale of this equity of redemption.

Later on April 20, 1952, Lal Chand gifted the shop to one Santosh Kumar Brahmin vide gift deed mark ''A'' and then Santosh Kumar Brahmin, in turn, sold the shop to Kailash Vati on February 30 1968. Amrik Singh was in occupation of this shop at that time She (Kailash Vati) filed an eviction petition against him on October 30, 1968 Which ended in compromise and thereafter on February 4 1972 Amrik Singh left the premises and this is when Tilak Raj came on to the shorn as a sub-tenant.

Before proceeding further, it would be pertinent to note the relationship of Tilak Raj with Lal Chand. The petitioner Tilak Raj is the grand son of Rakhi Pritam Kaur, her real sister being the wife of the said Lal Chand. This relationship is relevant in the context of the res pective stands of the parties with regard to the title to the shop Bawa lnderjit Singh, the original owner being the vendor in both cases namely ; in the first instance when he mortgaged the shop and then sold its equity of redemption to Lal Chand and then again in 1975 when he purported to sell the same shop again, to the petitioner Tilak Raj nephew of the said Lal Chand. Further, it deserves note that the gift deed mark ''A'' by virtue of which La! Chand is reported to have given the shop to Santosh Kumar Brahamin, was again scribed by none else, than the same Bawa Inderjit Singh.

In dealing with the question of title raised by the petitioner, what goes so much against him are the further facts, namely ; entry exhibit A/7 in the Deed-Writer''s register showing that in February 1972, the machinery fined in this shop bad been sold by Amirk Singh and his fathar and brother to the petitioner Tilak Raj This entry also shows that Amrik Singh and others were in possession of this shop and were liable to pay rent and electricity charges in respect thereof before this date When called upon to produce the actual deed referred to in this entry, Tilak Raj expressed his inability to do so on the plea that he already produced it in some other litigation.

There is then the testimony of Krishan Chand, Mukhitiar-i-am of Kailash Vati that Amrik Singh had put Tilak Raj in possession.

Further, there is the admission of Tilak Raj in his statement before issues, wherein, he accepted that he had obtained possession from Amrik Singh and had purchased machinery installed in the shop from him.

Such thus being the state of the evidence on record, there can be no escape from the conclusion that the appellate authority rightly held that there was the relationship of landlord and tenant between Kailash Vati and Amrik Singh and that the petitioner-Tilak Raj was a sub-tenant in the demised shop.

The main plea raised in revision here was the question of title raised by the petitioner had not been adjudicated upon by the rent controller. The law is well settled that the real issue to be decided is that of the relationship of landlord and tenant. Reference may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Om Parkash Gupta v. Dr. Rattan Singh and Anr. (1963) 61 P.L.R. 543, where, it was held that mere denial of the relationship of landlord and the tenant cannot oust the jurisdiction of the rent controller and if such relationship is denied, the authorities urder the Act must adjudicate and determine it. A similar view was later expressed by our Court in M/s Kharaitti Ram Bansi Lal and Ors. v. Smt. Radha Rani (1968)70 PL.R. 978. It will be seen that the matter regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant has indeed been duly considered and decided by both the rent controller and the appellate authority.

Counsel for the petitioner, however, sought to rely upon Sh. Beant Smgh v. Smt. Harbans Kaur (1980) 82 P.L.R. 310, but a plain regarding of it would show that it bears no resemblence to the facts of the case here. There the tenant questioned the title of the landlord which was, in turn, founded upon the Will of the deceased owner. This Will was contested by the other heirs of the deceased and it was consequently held that the rent controller was rot entitled to decide the question pertaining to the validity of the Will. No such situation arises in this respect.

No exception can thus be taken to the impugned order of the appellate authority up-holding the eviction of the petitioner. This revision petition is accordingly hereby dismissed with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 500/-.