Jalal Masih vs Hanifa

V.S. Aggarwal, J.—The present revision petition has been filed by Jalal Masih, hereinafter described as "the petitioner", directed against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Gurdaspur, dated 6.4.1984 and of the learned Appellate Authority, Gurdaspur, dated 10.1.1985. The learned Rent Controller had dismissed the petition for eviction filed by the petitioner and the said order was upheld by the learned Appellate Authority.

The relevant facts are that the petitioner had filed an application for eviction u/s 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short "the Act"), it was alleged that Hanifa respondent is a tenant in the property in question. The petitioner is the owner-landlord of the property which was let to the respondent-tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 40/-. The arrears were claimed to be due from 1.3.1968. In the reply filed, eviction petition was contested. It was alleged that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The petitioner had taken loan from the government for construction of the residential house. He had failed to repay the loan and entered into an agreement dated 29.11.1966 with the respondent. By virtue of the said agreement, the respondent was to pay the remaining instalments of loan and after the instalments were paid, the petitioner was to execute a sale deed in favour of the respondent. Possession was given to the respondent in terms of the said agreement. The petitioner even had filed a civil suit and it was compromised in terms of that agreement. The respondent claimed that he had paid all the instalments to the government.

The learned Rent Controller framed the issues and held that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. This was approved by the learned Appellate Authority. Hence, the present revision petition.

The short question that comes up for consideration is as to if there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties or not. Reliance was placed on the fact that the respondent when appeared as RW1 admitted that he was a tenant in the property. But the learned Appellate Authority rightly held that it was a typographical mistake. The statement of the witness had to be read as a whole and not one line in isolation. In rest of the statement, the respondent had denied that he was a tenant in the suit property. The question of admitting the said fact, therefore, would not arise.

It is in evidence that, the respondent had paid all the instalments of loan. An agreement had been executed between the parties and it was recognised in the previous civil suit filed by the petitioner. The respondent was put in possession of the same in pursuance of the said agreement. Obviously, possession was delivered of the suit property and was not inducted as a tenant. The learned Appellate Authority rightly held that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.

For these reasons, the revision petition being without merit must fail and is consequently dismissed.