S.P. Goyal, J. - (1.) The property in dispute bearing house No. BX-739 situate in Khud Mohalla at Ludhiana was Muslim evacuee property. This was purchased by the predecessor-in-interest of the landlord-respondents in public auction held on Oct. 21, 1957 and the tale certificate was issued in due course on June 19, 1964. Out of that property one room on the ground floor and one room on the first floor were in possession of Babu Ram, tenant (now represented by the petitioners. According to the allegations in the application filed for his ejectment, the tenant was in occupation of the said portion of the house on payment of Rs. 5 per month under the Custodian and after the transfer of the said property in favour of the respondents, he became a tenant under them The ejectment was sought on the ground of non-payment of rent.
(2.) This application was contested by the tenant on the ground that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The Rent Controller after taking into consideration the evidence led by the parties negatived the plea of the tenant and ordered his ejectment. The order of the Rent Controller was confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide judgment dated July 28, 1977 which led to the filing of the present petition.
(3.) Before dealing with the merits of the case, I may dispose of an application (Civil Misc. No. 235C-II of 1980) filed by the petitioners under Order 41, rule 27 Civil Procedure Code, for permission to lead additional evidence consisting of conveyance deed and some copies of the orders of the Rehabilitation Authorities. Through this conveyance deed dated Jan. 17, 1980, a portion of the house in possession of the tenant is purported to have been transferred in their favour. This being a subsequent event, it is urged on the basis of J.G. Kohli Vs. The Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh and another, A.I.R. 1976 Punjab and Haryana 107 , may be taken notice of by this Court I, however, do not find any reason to permit the leading of any additional evidence at this stage In the written reply filed by the tenant, there was no plea that the portion of the house in his possession was never transferred in favour of Ram Singh. Without amendment of the written statement it would not be open to lead any evidence on the plea which has never been taken. That apart, there is a certified copy of the statement, Exhibit A-4 of the tenant on the record in which he admitted that he was a tenant under clam Singh and was paying rent to him of the property adjoining the one in dispute in the earlier litigation. The property in dispute that litigation was also part of the said house. The reference in his statement obviously was to the portion of the house in dispute, which is also evident from the fact that the tenants never alleged that team singh owned any other property apart from the house BX-739 or that he was tenant of that property. Moreover, there is overwhelming evidence on the record. in the shape of the sale certificate and the map produced from the record of the Rehabilitation Authorities which shows that the property in dispute forms part of House BX-739 purchased by the predecessor in-interest of the respondents. If the property had been already sold the same could not form part of the package deal nor the said authorities who have issued the alleged sale certificate in favour of the present petitioners would have jurisdiction to deal with it. The application is, therefore, nothing but a vain attempt to delay the proceedings and harass the respondents which accordingly dismissed.;