J.V. Gupta, J. - (1.) The tenant-petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order of the appellate Authority dated Nov. 26, 1974, whereby the landlord-respondent's appeal was accepted and the order of the Rent Controller dismissing his application for ejectment was set aside.
(2.) The suit property is a double storey residential house situate within the municipal limits of Faridabad. The landlord pleaded that one room and one kitchen of the upper storey of this house was let out by him to Tara Chand tenant-petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs. 8 plus taxes leviable by the local bodies. Ejectment of the tenant was sought on the ground of non-payment of rent and for a bona fide need for his own use and occupation. The application for ejectment was resisted by the tenant-petitioner on the ground that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties because one-third share of this residential house has been purchased by him from one co-sharer Raghunath son of Sunder Lal brother of Bed Ram landlord-respondent vide registered sale-deed dated Sept. 30, 1970, and as such he has become the co-sharer of the same. The factum of the property being required for the landlord bona fide for his own use and occupation was denied. Admittedly, no arrears were paid on the first date of hearing. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues:- "1. Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant ceased to exist on 23-9-70 in the manner alleged ? 2. Whether the respondent is liable to be evicted from the premises on the ground stated in para 3 of the application -
(3.) The learned Rent Controller took the view that from the time of sale, the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties ceased to exist. Consequently application for ejectment was dismissed In appeal filed by the landlord before the appellate Authority the order of the Rent Controller has been set aside and it has been held that Tara Chand was tenant under Bed Ram and he is estopped from denying the title of landlord in view of the provisions of Sec. 116 of the Indian Evidence Act (hereinafter to be referred as the Act). Consequently, it was held that the relationship between the parties is that of landlord and tenant and since the tenant has failed to pay the arrears of rent on the first date of hearing, be is liable to ejectment. It has also been observed that whether the tenant-petitioner has acquired the status of co-owner or not may be taken up in the appropriate proceedings. The Rent Controller as such had no jurisdiction to decide the question of title. Feeling aggrieved against this order, the tenant has come up in revision to this Court.;