- (1.) Through this revision petition the orders of ejectment and its affirmance passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority respectively under the provisions of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent nd Eviction) Act, 1973 against the petitioner are assailed.
(2.) The respondent/landlords put in an application under Section 13 of the said Act, seeking the eviction of the petitioner on two grounds ; (i) non-payment of rent and (ii) personal necessity. In reply to the said application, the petitioner raised a contention that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that he was in adverse possession of the property.
(3.) The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner now is that since a question of title had been raised by the petitioner, the learned tribunal had no jurisdiction to go into the matter and they should have been well advised to refer the matter and they should have been well advised to refer the matter to the Civil Court for determination of the title of the parties. This contention though has already been negatived by both the Authorities below yet the matter too has since been settled by a recent Division Bench of this Court in Civil Revision No. 1200 of 1977 (Balbhadar and Others v. Hindi Sahitya Sadan), decided on July 11, 1979, wherein it has been held "that the Authorities under the Rent Restriction Act are fully competent to determine the issue as to whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. If the Controller decides that there is no such relationship, the proceedings before him have to be terminated without deciding the main question in controversy that is the question of eviction. If on the other hand the Controller comes to the opposite conclusion and holds that the person seeking eviction was the landlord and the person in possession was the tenant the proceedings have to go on". It was further observed in this judgment "that there was no substance in the contention that as soon as one of the parties denied the relationship of landlord and tenant the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Act was completely ousted." Thus, I find no substance in this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.;