MUNI LAL Vs. CHANDU LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A brief survey of the relevant facts leading to the filing of this appeal may first be made. Muni Lal appellant is the alleged tenant of the disputed premises. Chandu Lal respondent is the alleged landlord and owner of the property in question. In February 1959, Chandu Lal filed an application before the Rent Controller, Hissar (Senior Subordinate Judge, Hissar) for the ejectment of Muni Lal appellant from the premises in dispute, which comprise of Kothri No. 104 situate in Kucha Lala Chhabil Dass, Delhi Gate, Hissar. The ground of ejectment was the non -payment of rent and the personal need of the landlord. Before the Rent Controller, the defence of Muni Lal was that the Kothri belonged to him, that he had never taken the same on rent from Chandu Lal and that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. In his order, dated February 24, 1966, Shri G.D. Jain, the Kent Controller, held that though Chandu Lal might be the owner of the shop in dispute, but the evidence produced on the record of the case by the parties could not sustain a finding in favour of Chandu Lal to the effect that Muni Lal held the premises as a tenant under him. Chandu Lal's appeal under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (3 of 1949), (Civil Appeal No. 40 of 1960) was dismissed by the order of Shri Murari Lal Puri, Appellate Authority (District Judge, Hissar), dated May 31, 1961. The order and decision of the Rent Controller to the effect that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties had not been proved was upheld.

(2.) ON August 31, 1961, the suit from which the present appeal has arisen, was filed by Chandu Lal against Muni Lal for a declaration to the effect that the plaintiff was the absolute owner of the shop in question and that the defendant was in possession thereof as a tenant under the plaintiff. The suit was contested by Muni Lal who denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and further averred that this plea of the plaintiff had already been negatived by the Rent Controller and by the Appellate Rent Control Authority and that adjudication of this question was now barred on principles of res judicata. From the pleadings of the parties the trial Court framed the following issues: -

(3.) WHETHER the defendant has acquired ownership rights by adverse possession in the suit property?