SWATANTER KUMAR, J. - (1.) AS no body has appeared for either of the parties to this petition, there is no other alternative before this Court but to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
(2.) I have perused the records. Raj Kumari along with others had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 for ejectment of tenant-Banarsi Dass from the shop in dispute situated at Gohana Road, Jind, the better description of which was detailed in the petition. The shop was given on rent at the rate of Rs. 80/- per month and an amount of Rs. 2880/- was due to the petitioners on account of arrears of rent from the tenant. According to the landlords, the tenant had not paid rent and was in arrears of rent for three years preceding the presentation of the ejectment petition. The tenancy was allegedly terminated by service of notice on the tenant by registered acknowledgement due. The tenant contested the petition and the Rent Controller by order dated 15.6.1982, framed the following issues :- 1. Whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties ? OPP 2. Whether the respondent has not paid the arrears of rent ? If so, from which date and to what effect ? OPP 3. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try this petition ? OPR 4. Whether this petition is not maintainable in the present form ? OPR 5. Relief. The parties were granted opportunity to lead their evidence in support of their respective pleadings and ultimately, the Rent Controller decided issues 1 and 2 against the petitioners and in favour of the respondent-tenant. Consequently, the eviction petition was dismissed by order dated 21.1.1984. The order of the Rent Controller was challenged before the appellate authority, Jind, who vide judgment dated 30.9.1985 affirmed the judgment of the Rent Controller on all the issues.
(3.) IT will be appropriate to refer to the findings recorded by the appellate authority while affirming the judgment of the Rent Controller, which read as under : "The receipts mark A and B alleged to have been issued by Smt. Imarti Devi were not put to her if she had issued these two receipts. Smt. Imarti Devi did not make any mention as to the period for which she has realized the rent. The burden was on the tenant to prove payment and he has failed to discharge that burden. The petitioner-appellants had purchased the shop in question through a sale deed dated 10.12.1981 certified copy of which is Ex. P.2. The respondent had never attorned in favour of the present petitioners. The present petitioners had served notice Ex. P-4 on Banarsi Dass which is alleged to have been received back as refused. Though the said notice the present petitioners had informed the respondent to have purchased the property in question and calling upon him to the arrears of rent including the period prior to the purchase of the property by them. Shri Banarsi Dass has testified as R.W.1 that he had never received any notice for paying rent to the petitioners. No doubt the respondent has failed to discharge his burden of proving payment of rent to the landlords but the relationship of landlord and tenant had not come into existence between the parties. The petitioners could have very well examined the post-man who is alleged to have made attempt to deliver the notice in the form of a registered letter to Banarsi Dass and made report on the registered letter that the same had been refused. In view of the statement of Banarsi Dass on oath to have not received the letter, it was for the petitioners to prove refusal on the part of the respondent to accept notice. In the absence of any proof of refusal, the respondent cannot be attributed with knowledge of the contents of the same. The petitioners had purchased the property from one Pirthi Singh and not from Het Ram or his widow Smt. Imarti Devi. The petitioners have failed to establish if they are purchasers from the previous landlord of the premises. At the same time, there is no attornment by the respondent in their favour. Since relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is not proved, the petitioners are not entitled to eject the respondent on the grounds alleged by them. The appeal is, therefore, rejected as dismissed. The filed be consigned to the record room. Parties are left to bear their own costs." ;