Ujjagar Singh vs Lajpat Rai

G.C. Mital, J.—Ujjagar Singh filed an application for ejectment of Lajpat Rai u/s 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1941(sic) (for short ''the Act''), on the ground that he was in arrears of rent since October, 1972. It was pleaded that a room and a kitchen forming part of property No 309/1, Industrial Area, Ludhiana was given on rent to the tenant on 20th January, 1972 at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month. The tenant contest-ed the petition and pleaded that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties It was denied that he ever took the premises on rent Ownership of the applicant was disputed and it was pleaded that it was his (alleged tenant''s) wife who was the owner and she was a necessary party to the proceedings

The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority dismissed the application after recording findings that relationship of landlord and tenant was not proved between the parties. In doing so it was noticed that the tenant was a chaukidar and was earning Rs 175/- p.m. and he could not agree to pay Rs 100/- per month as rent. It was also noticed that the tenant''s wife had been living in the premises in dispute since 1965 as she was having a pass book relating to a bank account wherein her address of the premises was given. This is landlord''s revision

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, I am of the view that there is no scope for interference in this revision. On appreciation of evidence both the courts below have held that the relationship of landlord and tenant it not proved No meaningful argument has been raised which may go to show that the appreciation of evidence by the Courts below was such which may call for interference in this revision Once, the relationship of landlord and tenant is not proved, application for eviction u/s 13 of the Act would not be competent In case Ujagar Singh is owner of the property the proper remedy for him would be to seek possession of the premises in dispute by filing a suit in the civil Court either against Lajpat Rai only or against him and his wife or the (sic) alone, as the case may be.

For the reasons recorded above, this revision is dismissed and the parties are left to bear their own costs.