J.V. Gupta, J. - (1.) This is a petition on behalf of the landlord. His application for ejectment has been dismissed by the Rent Controller and the same has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority.
(2.) The only point for determination in this petition is whether Harinder Mohan Rana, petitioner, can be said to be the Landlord in respect of the rented premises so as to entitle him to come to the Rent Authorities under the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act.
(3.) In the application for ejectment, it was asserted that he is the owner-landlord of the premises in dispute and the respondent is the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 60. In reply thereto, the allegations were denied and it was stated that the petitioner is neither the owner nor the landlord of the respondent regarding the premises in dispute to the preliminary objections taken it was clearly stated that the petitioner is neither owner of the property in dispute nor has got any title, tight or interest therein On the pleadings of the patties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues : 1. Whether there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties ? 2. Whether the respondent is liable to ejectment on the grounds mentioned in para 2 of the petition ? 3. What is the effect of not filing the plan of premises in dispute along with the petition ? 4. Whether valid notice was served on the respondent ? If not so, its effect ? On issue No. 1 it has been concurrently found by both the authorities below that there exists no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.;