Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 187 (PNJ)

Ram Sarup v. Piare Lal

2000-02-15

V.S.AGGARWAL

body2000
Judgment V.S.Aggarwal, J. 1. The present revision petition has been filed by Ram Sarup (hereinafter described as the petitioner) directed against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Ferozepur dated 13.10.1980 and of the Appellate Authority, Ferozepur dated 24.3.1982. The learned Rent Controller had passed an order of eviction which was upheld by the Appellate Authority. 2. The respondent filed a petition for eviction against the petitioner with respect to the property in dispute. It was claimed that he purchased the house from Chander Mohan Harish Chander through its Karta Chander Mohan vide registered sale deed dated 22.3.1978. The petitioner was stated to be a tenant in the suit premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 12.50 paise. After purchase of the house, the respondent became the landlord of Ram Sarup. The petitioner is stated to have not paid the arrears of rent from 10.3.1978 to 31.3.1979 amounting to Rs. 153.12 paise. The eviction was further claimed that respondent landlord bona fide required the property for his own use and occupation. 3. In the written statement filed the petitioner contested the eviction application and alleged that Harish Chander has not executed any sale deed for the house in question. There has been no partition between Harish Chander and Chander Mohan. Chander Mohan had no right to alienate the house. The relationship of landlord and tenant was denied. 4. The learned Rent Controller framed the issues and after recording the evidence concluded that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was further held that petitioner was liable to be evicted from the premises in question. Since the rent had not been tendered on the first date of hearing, an order of eviction was passed. The petitioner preferred an appeal. The findings of the learned Rent Controller were approved. 5. The basic dispute raised was about the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It is not in controversy that if there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the petitioner would be liable to be evicted because in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the petitioner did not tender the arrears of rent on the first date of hearing. 6. It is not in controversy that if there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the petitioner would be liable to be evicted because in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the petitioner did not tender the arrears of rent on the first date of hearing. 6. Herein, appreciating the evidence the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority returned the findings that respondent had purchased the house and thus there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Chander Mohan even proved that he had sold the property to the respondent vide sale deed Ex.A-2. The plea of the petitioner that the property belonged to the Government of India was not established for lack of evidence. 7. In that event, it was urged by the petitioner that site was lying vacant and he had raised construction at his own expense. The said contention even had been disbelieved. The evidence on the record was lacking to establish the same. In these circumstances, the authorities under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 rightly concluded that respondent had purchased the property from the previous landlord and thus by operation of law the relationship of landlord and tenant came into being. There is no illegality and impropriety in the orders so passed. 8. For these reasons, the revision petition being without merit must fail and is dismissed. The petitioner is granted two months time to vacate the property.