J.V.Gupta, J. - (1.) THIS petition has been filed by the tenant Petitioner against the order of the Appellate Authority, Juliundur, dated 2nd August, 1973, whereby the order of Rent Controller d recting his ejectment, has been maintained.
(2.) SMT . Harbans Kaur, landlady, filed this ejectment petition, stating that he had purchased the house from Kaushalya ani(sic) through a registered sale deed, dated 8th June, 1972. Earlier, the Petitioner was a tenant under Kaushalya Rani in respect of tha house in dispute at Rs. 12/ per month Due to this purchase, he became a tenant under her on the same terms and conditions Ejectment of the tenant was sought on she ground of non payment of rent from 1st October, 1967, upto date and also on the ground that the premises were bona fide required for her personal use and occupation In reply, the tenant denied that there was any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He claimed that he was owner of one -third share In the house purchased from Leela Wati daughter of Malawa Ram The Rent Cont roller was stated to have no jurisdiction to try the matter. Rent amounting to Rs 60/ from 8th June, 1977, with interest and costs was tendered On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues: 1. Whether there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties ? 2. If Issue No 1 is proved, has the Rent Controller jurisdiction to try the application ? 3 Whether the Respondents is liable to ejectmen on the grounds mentioned in the petition ? 4 Whether the Respondents owner of one -third of the house in dispute. If so, its effect on the present application ? On issue No 1. both the Rent Controller, as well as the Appellate Authority have come to the conclusion that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties It has also been concurrently found by both the authorities that the landlord bona fide requires the premises for her own use and occupation and the tender of arrears of rent was not a valid one. Feeling aggrieved against this order, the tenant has come up in revision to this Court. The main question to be decided in this petition is whether the Rent Controller has the jurisdiction to decide the question of title involved in the case. It is admitted that Malawa Ram was the original owner and landlord of the premises in dispute. The Petitioner was inducted as a tenant by Malawa Ram during his life -time. According to the landlord, Malawa Ram executed a will dated 1st January, 1965 ft is admitted that Malawa Ram left behind three daughters, viz. Kau -shalaya Rani, Vidya Wanti and Leela Wanti. The will is stated to be executed in favour of Kaushalaya Rani only. Due to the will in her favour, Kaushilya Rani told the premises in dispute to Shmt. Harbans Kaur, landlord Respondent, vide sale deed dated 8th June, 1973 The application for ejectment was filed on 8th August, 1972. Prior to this application, Leela Wanti another daughter or Malaga Ram deceased sold one third share on 30th July, 1972, in favour of Beant Singh, tenant Petitioner. On these facts, Beant Singh claimed himself to be the owner qua one -third of the property and thus he claimed that the relationship of landlord and tenant had ceased to exist from that date, i.e. from the date of sate is his favour by Leela Wanti. Under these circumstances, the(sic) sole question to be decided in this petition is whether the Rent Controller could decide the validity of the will or not ? It cannot by "disputed that the landlord can only succeed in this ejectment application if she proves that Malwa Ram had made a valid will in favour of Kaushalya Rani from whom she claimes her title by virtue of the sale deed in her favour. On the other haad, if the will is not proved, admittedly, Leela Wanti being the owner of one -third, has rightly transferred her share in favour of Beant Singh tenant Petitioner. Since a question of title is involved, in the case, the Rent Controller could not decide the matter being a tribunal of a limited jurisdiction. Reliance in this respect has been placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Massers Kharati Ram Pansi(sic) Lal v. Shmt Radha Rani and another, : (1968)70 P. L. R. 978. It has been held therein that if while determining that question, the Rent Controller comes to the coaclusion that he con -Bit decide that question without determining the complicated question of title, he will, in that event, stay his hands. But if he can, with out deciding the complicated question of the, determine the sole question, which falls within his jurisdiction, namely, whether there is the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, he will proceed to decide that question and would not be deterred by the fact that the tenant seek to raise the complicated question of title. It has been further observed in this case that in any event even if he settles for his owd purposes, the question or title, it will not be of any consequence and in an appropriate case the Appellee Authority or this Court may quasi that order leaving the parties to get that question of title settled in a Civil Court Of course, in the present case both the Authorities below have decided this qusstion and have come to a concurrent finding that the will ex cuted by Malawa Ram in favour of Kaushalaya Rani is a valid one but the question that still remains to be answered is whether this question of title could be decided by the Rent Controller under the Act or not ? It may be that in a given case if a frivoleus objection to this effect is taken by the tenant, the Jurisdiction of the Rent Controller is not ousted on this account alone, as held by the Supreme Court in Om Parkask Gupta v. Dr. Rattan Singh and another, : (1963)65 P.L.R. 543 On the facts and circumstances of the present case, the objection on behalf of the tenant Petitioner that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties has ceased bacause of the sale in his favour by one of the daughters of Malawa Ram, the original landlord, cannot be said to be of a frivolous nature or just to delay the proceedings. Admittedly, Malawa Ram had left behind three daughters and if one of them claims to be the exclusive owner because of any alleged will in her favour, will be for her(sic) to prove the execution and the validity of the will in a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction thus, it directly involves a question of title in the present case and on these facts the authorities below could not decide this question under the Act. It has been observed by the Supreme Court in Om Parkash Gupta's case (supra), that 'The Tribunals under the Act being creatures of the Statute have limited jurisdiction and have to function within the four corners of the Statutes creating them " In this view of the matter the objection on behalf of the tenant -Petitioner that the Rent Cont toller had not the jurisdiction to decide the question of title, seems to be a valid one Consequently, it is held that the application for ejectment under the Act cannot be maintained.
(3.) FOR the reasons recorded above, this petition succeeds, the order of the Appellate authoritv is set aside and the application for ejectment is dismissed, with no order as to costs.;