J.V. Gupta, J. - (1.) THE tenant -petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority dated September 27, 1977 whereby the order of the Rent Controller directing his ejectment was maintained.
(2.) THE landlord -respondent Gurdip Singh sought the ejectment of his tenant Darshan Singh from the premises in dispute which consists of three rooms, one court -yard on the ground floor and three rooms, one kitchen and a verandah on the first floor, on the ground of non -payment of rent and subletting by the tenant Darshan Singh to Santokh Singh and another without the written consent of the landlord and for his personal use and occupation. It was stated in the ejectment application that earlier one Lal Chand was the owner of the property under whom Darshan Singh was the tenant. The said Lal Chand died on December 10, 1972 and later on his heirs and legal representatives sold the house to Gurdip Singh landlord vide registered sale deed dated May 3, 1973. A registered notice from the Advocate was also given to Darshan Singh tenant informing him that the house has been purchased by Gurdip Singh and henceforth the rent be paid to him. In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant Darshan Singh it was contended that Lal Chand was not the owner of the house, in fact, his father Kahan Singh was in possession of this house as its owner. It was further contended that respondents Nos. 2 to 4 (the alleged sub tenants) had inherited this house from their father alongwith Ram Piari and Mohinder Kaur and they are in possession of the house in dispute as its owners. On the pleadings of the parties the Rent Controller framed the following issues: - 1. Whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the applicant and respondent No 1? 2. Whether the applicant requires the house for his personal use and occupation? Whether respondent No. 1 has sublet the house to respondent No. 2 to 4 as alleged? 3. The Rent Controller allowed the ejectment application as it came to the conclusion that there is relationship of landlord and tenant and that the landlord required the house for his own use and occupation. In appeal these findings of the Rent Controller have been affirmed by the Appellate Authority. Feeling aggrieved against this order the tenants have come up in revision in this Court.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners contended that there is no evidence on the record to prove that Lal Chand was the owner of the house in dispute. According to the learned counsel if Lal Chand is not proved to be the owner of the house, then Gurdip Singh cannot claim himself to be the landlord. He further contended that mere entries in the assessment register maintained by the Municipal Committee to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant is not sufficient. In support of this contention he referred to Jagan Nath v. Shrimati Shanti Devi, (1976) 78 P.L.R. 158.;