S.S.SUDHALKAR,J - (1.) THE petitioner has filed this revision petition challenging the orders of Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority. Respondents had filed the eviction petition against the petitioner which was allowed. The appeal filed over the same was also dismissed.
(2.) THE case of the respondent-landlord is that the petitioner is in arrears of rent. It is further their case that the suit property is required by them for bonafide personal use. The contention of the respondents is that the suit property was ownership of Central Khalsa Yatima Khana-Chief Khalsa Dewan (hereinafter referred to as the 'original owner') and the petitioner was the tenant in it at a monthly rent of Rs. 25/-. It was purchased by the respondents from the original owner vide registered sale-deed dated 21.10.1991 and hence they become landlords of the petitioner who became their tenant. The petitioner had not paid the arrears of rent and the property was required bonafide by the respondent for their personal use. The contention of the respondents is that they have two sons, namely, Gurmit Singh and Maninder Singh and three daughters, namely, Parvinder Kaur, Paramjit Kaur and Balbir Kaur. All the daughters are married and they along with their children often visit the house of the respondents. The respondents are in possession of only two rooms, bath room, store and kitchen. The rooms are very small and as such it is very difficult for the respondents and their family members to live there. It is also contended that they have no drawing room and they have no separate bath room for their sons. They are in possession of only one room with verandah converted into a small room instead. They have purchased the suit property enabling them to live comfortably and they have no other residential building nor they have vacated any such accommodation. Notice was served by the Rent Controller on the petitioner who filed written statement. He took a preliminary objection that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties. He has contended that he is a tenant of the original owner and he still continues to be his landlord. The monthly rent is Rs. 25/-. It is further contended by the petitioner that the original owner was the limited owner of the property because it was bequeathed by Smt. Kunan Kaur to the original owner with a rider that the office-bearers of the original owner cannot sell or alienate the same but they could use the income for running their affairs and hence the original owner still continues to be the owner. It is also contended that there was no legal and valid sale deed executed in favour of the respondents and moreover no valid resolution was passed by the original owner for the sale of the property. It is further contended that if any such resolution was passed by the original owner, the same was illegal. It is also contended by the petitioner in the written statement that the original owner is a religious/charitable institution and its office-bearers could use the income of the property but could not sell it.
(3.) HOWEVER , on the first date of hearing, the petitioner tendered the rent reserving his right to claim the refund. It is contended that the accommodation available to the respondent is sufficient. It is denied that respondents have three daughters and if they have any such daughters, they are residing out of Amritsar or rather out of India and have never visited the respondents. It is further contended that elder son of the respondents is living at Nawan Shahr and is employed there and other son of the respondents is also not living at Amritsar and, therefore, both the sons of the respondents have never visited Amritsar. It is also contended that the petition be dismissed. Replication was filed by the respondents.;