J.V. Gupta, J. - (1.) This is a petition filed on behalf of the tenant against the order of the Appellate Authority, Patiala, dated 18th May, 1976, whereby the order of the Kent Controller directing his ejectment, was maintained.
(2.) Shrimati Swaran Kaur, landlady-respondent, purchased the house in dispute from its previous owner Shrimati Chhoto, vide registered sale-deed, dated 2nd Sept., 1972. Shrimati Surat Kaur, petitioner, was tenant under Shrimati Chhoto on the monthly rent of Rs. 30. The ejectment was sought on the ground of non-payment of rent and for bona fide requirement of the landlady for her own use and occupation. The application was resisted by the tenant denying the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was, inter alia. pleaded that the landlady was not the owner of the house in dispute nor did Shrimati Chhoto had any connection with it. On the other band, it was alleged that one Bant Ram was the owner of the house in dispute, and had given the same on rent to Shrimati Surjit Kaur at the rate of Rs. 30 per month. It was, however. Lad misted that no rent was paid to the landlady since 2nd Sept., 1972. On the pleadings of the parties. the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties ? 2. Whether the respondent is liable to be evicted on the basis of non-payment of rent ? 3. Whether the applicant bona fide require the premises in dispute for his personal use and occupation ? 4. Relief. Admittedly, no arrears of rent were paid on the first date of bearing. The application was mainly contested on the ground that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The learned Rent Controller came to a firm finding teat "it is, therefore, to be found that by purchase from Smt. Chhoto, the applicant has become the owner of the house in dispute and as such she is the landlord of the respondent in respect of the house in dispute. A relationship of land lord and tenant exists between the parties". This finding has been confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority. Feeling aggrieved against this concurrent it finding of both the Authorities below, the tenant has come up in revision to this Court.
(3.) The learned counsel for the tenant argued that the finding of the Authorities below that Shrimati Chhoto was the owner of the property and she has rightly transferred the same in favour of Shrimati Swaran Kaur, is wrong and is against the evidence on the record. He referred to the notice issued by the landlord prior to the institution of the application and the reply filed on behalf of the tenant. Statement of Shanti Devi, who appeared as A.W. 3, was also read in this Court. After going through the evidence, the learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out that how the finding of the two Authorities below is vitiated. Findings are bated on evidence on the record and, admittedly, the same cannot be interfered in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction Consequently, this petition fails and is dismissed with costs. However, the tenant is allowed one month to vacate the premises, provided all the arrears, if any, and the advance rent for one month, is paid or deposited within one week from today. Revision dismissed.;