Lt. Col. P.N. Khanna vs Lt. Col. C.L. Salwan

S.P. Goyal, J.—The respondent filed a petition for ejectment of the petitioner from the house in dispute which was allowed and ejectment order passed on August 14, 1981 on the consent of the parties whereby some portion of the house was to be vacated by August 31, 1981 and the remaining on or before August 12, 1983. During this period, the petitioner was to pay Rs. 750/- as rent. The respondent moved another application for ejectment on the ground that the petitioner was damaging the property. He moved a third application for ejectment on the ground of non-payment of rent. In this application, a preliminary objection was taken that it was not maintainable in view of the earlier ejectment order This objection has been overruled by the learned Rent Controller Jullundur, vide order dated June 15, 1982 and it is this order which is under challenge in this revision by the tenant.

It has been repeatedly by this Court such as in Umrao v. Nem Chand 1967 P. L. J. 249, Amln Lal and others v. Financial Commissioner Punjab 1967 P. L. J. 297 and Ram Kishan v. Jit Singh 1970 Rev. L. R 59 that on the passing of the ejectment order tenancy comes to an end Simply because the tenant is allowed to continue in possession under the compromise whereby execution of the ejectment order is postponed for a certain period it cannot be said that he continues to hold the status of a tenant nor would the fact that such a tenant is required to pay for his occupation I would entitle him to claim such a status because payment would be by way of compensation for the occupation of the premises in accordance with the terms of the ejectment order. The matter can be looked at from another angle also, namely, that the moment the ejectment order is passed, the rights of the parties under contractual tenancy merge into that order and no claim can be based on its basis in future No other tenancy having come into being after the passing of the ejectment order it is not possible to hold on any premises that the relationship between the parties is that of land lord and tenant.

The impugned order is consequently reversed and the petition for ejectment dismissed. No costs.