Harbans Lal, J. - (1.) EVICTION application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent(sic) Restriction Act, (hereinafter to be called the Act), by the present Petitioners, has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Jullundur, vide order dated July 29, 1978. The present revision petition is directed against the same.
(2.) IN the first instance, the eviction order had been passed by the Rent Controller, which was upheld by the Appellate Authority. Revision against the same was, However, allowed by Narula, C. J., by his order dated January 14, 1977, reported as Jagjit Lal alias Jagjit Rai v. Shri Gurjinder Singh Arora, 1972 P.F.A. 474. The case was remanded back after allowing amendment of the eviction petition so as to make specific averments in terms of the requirement of item (b) of Section 13 (8)(sic) (a)(i) of the Act. Under this order, opportunity was also to be given to the tenant for filing the amended petition, and opportunity to prove or rebut the new averment was to be allowed to both the parties. After evidence had been led by both the parties, order of eviction was passed, which was challenged in appeal. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and dismissed the eviction petition. It is this order which has been challenged in the present revision petition. The eviction petition had been filed by the present two Petitioners out of whom Petitioner No. 1. is the son and Petitioner No. 2 is his father. In the revision petition before the High Court which was decided by Narula, C.J, it had been urged on behalf of the tenant that the eviction petition be dismissed on the ground that the relationship between the two Petitioners had not been disclosed in the eviction petition and it was not clear if the eviction petition had been filed by the landlord. The learned Chief Justice, after perusing the material on the record came to the following conclusion: Whosoever may be the owner of the premises, no doubt at all is left from the reading of the pleading of the parties that the landlord of the Petitioner is Respondent No. 1 (now Petitioner No. 1(sic) ) The reason why the father of the landlord, that is, Respondent No. 2 had also to be impleaded as a party to the case by the Respondents is clearly set out in paragraph 3 of the petition. The averment in that paragraph is that when a notice of eviction was served by Respondent No. 1 on the tenant, the later stated in reply that the premises, in dispute, were taken by him on rent from respondent No. 2 (now Petitioner No 2) and, therefore, in order to avoid any unnecessary controversy, both the Respondents served a fresh notice or, the Petitioner (now Respondent) and both of them subsequently joined in filing the application for eviction.
(3.) ACCORDING to the learned Counsel for the tenant Respondent even if the demised premises ware given on lease to the Respondent by Petitioner No. 1, he cannot be considered to be a landlord for the purpose of satisfying the ingredients as contained in Section 13 (3)(a)(3(sic)) (a)(b) and (c) of the Act, and only Petitioner No. 2, being the owner of the premises, has to be considered as landlord. Reliance in this regard has been placed on Shrimati Ram piari v. M/s Delhi Fruit Company, 1980 Cur L.J. (Civil) 141. In the said case, one Shrimati Ram Piari filed an ejectment application seeking eviction of the tenant on a number of grounds. The case of the tenant was that the demised premises had been leased out to him by her son Surinder Kumar in the first instance and so he was the landlord and not his mother, Shrimati Ram Piari. According to the findings of the learned Judge, there was no dispute between the said Surinder Kumar and Shrimati Ram Piari, rather the ownership of the latter had been admitted by Surinder Kumar and that he had rented the premises on her behalf. In these circumstances. It was held that Shrimati Ram Piari was the owner and as such the landlord for the purposes of the Act. It was also held as under: In a given case if there is dispute between the person who inducted the tenant and the person who claims himself to be the owner of the property, the Rent Controller may not decide this dispute under the Act and may refer the parties to the Civil Court, but in a case where there is no dispute between the person who inducted the tenant originally and the real owner of the property, rather it is admitted by the person that be has rented out the premises on behalf of the owner and has been realising the rent on his behalf, then under these circumstances, it cannot be held that the owner in not the landlord of the property for the purposes of the Act . Basing his entire case on the above conclusion, the case of the learned);