J.V. Gupta, J. - (1.) This is a revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority dated Nov. 4, 1975 whereby the appeal of the landlord was accepted and the order of the Rent Controller dismissing his application for ejectment was set aside.
(2.) The landlord-respondent filed an application under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) for the eviction of the tenant from the house in dispute. It was alleged that the property No. B.X. 1-139 (old) and B X. 1-289 (near) Gali No. 2, Shahpur road, Ludhiana. was an evacuee property which was transferred to the landlord-respondent vide conveyance deed issued by the District Rent and Managing Officer dated Dec. 5, 1967, Ex. A.3. The transfer had been made retrospectively with effect from Oct. 1, 1955, as stated in the said sale deed which was duly registered with the Sub-Registrar on April 3, 1968. On the basis of this sale deed in their favour, the landlord respondent filed application for ejectment on the ground of nonpayment of rent by the tenant-petitioner. In the written statement filed on behalf of the petitioner, he denied that he was the tenant under the applicant. It was alleged that the property in dispute was transferred in the name of Harbans Kaur widow of Sant Singh, Paramjit Singh son of Sant Singh and Manjit Kaur and Paramjit Kaur daughters of Sant Singh because Sant Singh had died meanwhile Virtually the property was transferred to Sant Singh who was the original allottee Sant Singh during his life time had transferred the property in dispute in favour of the tenant-petitioner and had received the entire sale consideration from him. Rs. 302 were paid in cash and a bond of Rs. 1,894 was given to Sant Singh deceased and thus the entire sale price was paid to him. An agreement to sell bet ween Sant Singh and Narinder Singh petitioner was entered into on Aug. 19, 1960, Ex. R.1 and again on Nov. 7, 1960, Ex. R.1. The possession of the petitioner it is stated is in pursuance of these agreements and thus there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. On the pleadings of the parties the Rent Controller framed the following issues : "1. Whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners and the respondents ? 2. Whether the respondent is liable to ejectment on the grounds mentioned in para 3 of the application."
(3.) Learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that there is no relationship of landlord and terra it between the parties as Sant Singh deceased to whom the house was earlier allotted had agreed to sell the property in dispute in favour of the petitioner vide agreements Ex. R.1 and R. 5 and he had already received the entire sale Price of his house. It was further found by the Rent Controller that Sant Singh had admitted in Ex. R. 5, receipt of the entire sale price in cash and in the firm of claim adjustment from the petitioner and had agreed to execute the sale-deed in his favour within one month of the receipt of the conveyance deed from the Rehabilitation Department. Unfortunately Sant Singh died before the conveyance deed in respect of this property was issued by the rehabilitation authorities and consequently the same was issued in favour of his heirs. i.e. now the respondents. In appeal filed on behalf of the landlords, the appellate authority has reversed the order of the Rent Controller and has held that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Feeling aggrieved against this order of the Appellate Authority, the alleged tenant has come up in revision to this Court.;