JUDGMENT Mr. Jaswant Singh, J.: - Petitioners(tenant nos.1,2 & 4 to 7) are in revision against the concurrent findings returned by both the Authorities below whereby the ejectment application filed by the respondents(landlords) on the ground of personal necessity for themselves, cease to occupy the premises since 1992 and the building being unfit and unsafe for human habitation was allowed by the learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar vide his order dated 23.08.2007 and the findings thereof were affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority, Jalandhar vide his order dated 21.12.2012. 2. In brief, facts of the case are that the respondents(landlords) Harbhajan Singh and Harvinder Singh who are brothers, filed an eviction petition against the petitioners(tenants) on the ground that the property in question is required by them as both of them have their respective families and are at present living in a house along with their father which now is not sufficient to accommodate such a big family especially when there is an altercation with the father now. It was also averred that the petitioners (tenants) have ceased to occupy the premises in question since the year 1992 and thus are entitled to eviction on this ground as well. Finally it was stated that since the house has been locked for so many years and the rain water enters the house in dispute, therefore, it has also become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Thus eviction was sought. 3. Upon notice, petitioners(tenants) filed reply whereby it was stated that the transfer of property in favour of the respondents(landlords) by the original owner is malafide and only a way to create ground of personal necessity. It was also stated that there is no personal necessity as alleged by the respondents(landlords) and the petitioners(tenants) are occupying the demised premises since the inception of tenancy and, therefore, no ground for cease to occupy or the building becoming unfit and unsafe is made out as they are still residing in the demised premises. 4. Replication was filed wherein the entire contents of the petition were reiterated and that of the written statement were denied. 5. From the pleadings of the parties issues were framed. Both sides lead evidence and after appreciating their evidence learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar allowed the ejectment application and the findings thereof were affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority, Jalandhar. Hence the present revision petition. 6. 5. From the pleadings of the parties issues were framed. Both sides lead evidence and after appreciating their evidence learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar allowed the ejectment application and the findings thereof were affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority, Jalandhar. Hence the present revision petition. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners(tenants) and have gone through the case file carefully with his able assistance. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners(tenants) has argued that both the courts below have failed to appreciate the fact that there exists no necessity as has been held by both the courts below in favour of respondents (landlords). It was also argued that the ejectment application itself is not maintainable because the transfer of property in favour of respondents (landlords) is a sham transaction and thus, the respondents(landlords) have no right to maintain the ejectment application. It was further argued that both the Authorities below have not appreciated the evidence in the right perspective so as to return the findings that the property has become unfit and unsafe and further that the petitioners are not occupying the property in question. In support of his contentions the learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Devi Dass Vs. Mohan Lal 1982(2) RCR(Rent) 246, Mrs. Rekha Sharma Vs. Smt. Shankar Devi & Anr. 1988(1) RCR (Rent) 618 & Smt. Manjula Sagar Vs. Wazir Chand Sharma & Anr. 2002(2) RCR (Rent) 69 to say that once a tenant alleges a particular transaction between the family members to be a sham transaction then the Rent Authorities are duty bound to record a finding as to whether the sale/alienation is a paper transaction or actually a bona fide one. 8. After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner(tenants) and having gone through the case file carefully, this Court is of the considered opinion that present petition is devoid of any merit and the same deserves to be dismissed. 9. As far as the argument regarding non maintainability of the petition on the ground that the transaction between Gurdial Kaur i.e. mother of respondents(landlords) and respondents(landlords) is a sham transaction is concerned, it has been held time and again that in an eviction petition the court is to decide only the relationship of landlord and tenant. As far as question of title is concerned, that can only be incidentally gone into but cannot be decided finally. As far as question of title is concerned, that can only be incidentally gone into but cannot be decided finally. It has further been held that a tenant cannot deny title of landlord, however, defective it may be until and unless he claims ownership. In the present case, the respondents(landlords) placed on record the sale deed dated 18.05.1992 executed by Gurdial Kaur through her power of attorney Avtar Singh(father of respondents(landlords) in favour of the present respondents(landlords). It is not the case of the petitioners(tenants) that the sale deed is a forged and fabricated document and it is only the case that the said transaction is a sham transaction, however, the said argument cannot be accepted because the present petition was filed on 21.11.1996 i.e. after more than 4-1/2 years of the sale transaction between the mother and the sons and thus prima facie it is proved that the title of respondents (landlords) was clear. A tenant cannot be allowed to raise a question of title especially when prima facie title is in favour of landlords is proved. In eviction proceedings under the Rent Act, the courts are only required to see as to whether there exists a prima facie relationship of landlord and tenant among the parties or not. The second question that authorities under the Rent Act need to decide is that if ownership had changed hands from one person to another, whether the person who has filed the ejectment application is the owner and consequently the landlord of the tenants or not. Once that is proved, no further inquiry is required by the courts to go into at the time of deciding the ejectment application. In support of this view, I am fortified by the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhogadi Kannababu & Ors. Vs. Vugginna Pydamma & Ors. 2006(3) Civil Court Cases 348. Thus in view of the above, argument raised by the counsel for the petitioners(tenants) has to be negated and judgments cited pale into insignificance in view of the Bhogadi Kannababu & Ors. case(supra). 10. Vs. Vugginna Pydamma & Ors. 2006(3) Civil Court Cases 348. Thus in view of the above, argument raised by the counsel for the petitioners(tenants) has to be negated and judgments cited pale into insignificance in view of the Bhogadi Kannababu & Ors. case(supra). 10. As far as the second argument regarding non appreciation of the facts in the present case is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that all the facts have been rightly appreciated by the Authorities below as is evident from the fact that the tenants are already in possession of two big houses in the same city and further that the photographs that were placed on record by the respondents(landlords) showed that the premises in question was in shabby condition, which prove the fact that the building was unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Furthermore, it is also evident from the record that the demised premises is locked for the past 10 years and lying neglected which has resulted into development of cracks and thus requires immediate repair. Hence, in view of the overwhelming evidence discussed above coupled with the fact that the landlord is best judge of his requirement, this Court is of definite opinion that the present petition is devoid of any merit and the same has to be dismissed. 11. In view of the above, finding no merit in the present revision petition, the same is hereby dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————