- (1.) The landlord-petitioner has filed this revision against the order of the Appellate Authority, Gurgaon, dated 30th August, 1973, where by the order of the rent Controller, dismissing application of the tenant under Section 13 (4) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), has been set aside.
(2.) One Shrimati Yogwanti was the owner of the house in dispute, which was rented out to Khushi Ram Sharma. The said Yogwanti filed an eviction application against her tenant on the ground of personal necessity and in that application, an eviction order was passed on the basis of the statements of the parties. By this statement the tenant accepted that Yogwanti had personal necessity of her and that of her family. On the basis of this statement dated 15th July, 1968, the eviction order was passed on that day vide copy exhibit P. 1 by which the eviction of the tenant was ordered and it was directed that he shall deliver the possession of the tenanted premises to Shrimati Yogwanti on or before 31st December, 1969. According to the tenant, he delivered the possession of the house in question to Smt. Yogwanti on Ist January, 1970, but Smt. Yogwanti never occupied the house and sold it away to Jaivir (petitioner) by means of a registered sale-deed, dated 23rd November, 1970, a copy of which is Exhibit P. W. 3/1 on the file for a consideration of Rs. 12,000/-. On 3rd December, 1970, the tenant Khushi Ram filed an application under sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act, in which it was prayed that the landlord be directed to restore the possession of the building as he has failed to occupy the same for a continuous period of 12 months from the date of obtaining possession. In this application, both the landlords, i.e. the original landlord Shmt. Yogwanti, and as well as her transferee Jaivir were made parties. This application was contested by the transferee Jaivir only. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed : - 1. Whether Jaivir respondent is a bonafide purchaser without notice If so, its effect 2. Whether Shmt. Yogwanti transferred the house to Jaivir in contravention of the provisions of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act If so, its effect
(3.) Whether the application is not maintainable in view of preliminary objection No. 1 Issue No. 1 was decided against the landlord and in favour of the tenant. On issue No. 1, the Rent Controller took the view that the tenant having failed to prove the date of delivery of possession by himself cannot be allowed to shift his burden on the respondent, and on that basis dismissed his application. In appeal, the Appellate Authority has reversed that finding of the Rent Controller on issue No. 2 and has come to the conclusion, that 'from what has been stated above, it is manifest that the landlady of the appellant, i.e. Yogwanti did not occupy the premises in question for a continuous period of 12 months after obtaining the eviction order against the appellant on the ground of personal necessity, and, therefore, the appellant is, entitled to the restoration of the possession." In his judgment, it has also been observed earlier by the Appellant Authority, that "I am not prepared to believe the respondent and his witnesses when they say that this recital was wrong. Thus, it is established that the appellant delivered the possession of this house to the landlady on 1.1.70 in pursuance of the order of the Controller and I hold that the possession of this house was delivered by the appellant within 12 months of the date of its sale to the contesting respondent." Feeling aggrieved against this order, the appellant Jaivir, transferee landlord has come in revision to this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the tenant has failed to prove the date of delivery of possession, and, therefore, the Rent Controller was right in deciding issue No. 2 in favour of the petitioner-landlord. He further contended that according to the definition of the expression 'landlord' in Section 2 (c) of the Act, every person from time to time deriving title under a landlord, is also a landlord for the purposes of the Act. According to the learned counsel, therefore, the possession of the petitioner Jaivir, will be deemed to the possession of the earlier landlord, i.e. Shmt. Yogwanti. An argument was also based on the provisions of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act.;