BHAN SINGH Vs. HARNAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bhan Singh has filed this revision petition against the order of eviction passed against him by the learned Rent Controller, Kapurthala, which on appeal, was affirmed by the Appellate Authority.

(2.) On facts there is no dispute that Bhan Singh, petitioner, was occupying the property as a tenant of the Custodian at Rs. 5/- per month. Harnam Singh, respondent, purchased the property in dispute from the Custodian on 5th August, 1967, and thereafter in the year 1970, he filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for ejectment on the ground that the tenant had not paid rent and that the premises was required bona fide for his own occupation. The application was contested by the petitioner. The learned Rent Controller found all the issues in favour of the landlord-respondent and allowed the ejectment application. On appeal, as earlier observed the order of the learned Rent Controller was affirmed by the Appellate Authority.

(3.) The only contention raised before me by Mr. Wasu, learned counsel, is that the petitioner is not a tenant of the respondent and that the provisions of Section 29 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, were not applicable. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has placed reliance on two Single Bench decisions of this Court in Sardara Singh v. Smt Parvari, 1971, 1971 CurLJ 623 and in Gurcharan Singh v. Devki Nandan and another, 1970 72 PunLR 651. After hearing the learned counsel, I am of the view that there is no merit in this contention of his. The petitioner has failed to prove his status as that of an allottee or a licensee. From the evidence on the record, it is clear that he was the tenant under the Custodian and is now a tenant under the respondent. The provisions of Section 29 are not applicable nor can any benefit be drawn from those provisions by the petitioner. Further, the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, have no applicability to the facts of the case in hand, and are quite distinguished. The decision in Parma Nand v. Shrimati Ram Ludhai,1561 PunLR 50, relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent, fully applies to the facts of the instant case. The petitioner is a tenant under the respondent and the finding of the learned Appellate Authority in this respect is affirmed.