- (1.) RESPONDENTS had filed the application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 seeking ejectment of Vinod Kumar Arora from the shop in question. The Rent Controller allowed the ejectment petition vide order dated 25.10.2012 and the same was upheld by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 30.9.2013. Hence, present petition by Rishi Arora, legal heir of Vinod Kumar Arora.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record available on the file carefully. Case of the respondents was that Amar Nath was inducted as a tenant in the shop in question w.e.f. 1.8.1962 on a monthly rent of Rs. 25/ -. Tenancy was initially oral and later the termsof the tenancy were reduced into writing on 30.8.1962. Arjan Singh died on 23.4.1998. Initially tenancy was created by Arjan Singh in favour of Amar Nath. After the death of Arjan Singh, respondents had stepped into the shoes of Arjan Singh. After the death of Amar Nath, Vinod Kumar Arora became the tenant qua the premises in question. All the respondents had settled abroad. Ejectment of the tenant was sought on the ground of non payment of rent and on the ground that the suit property had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. It was also submitted by the respondents that the demised premises had been altered without the consent of the landlord and, thus, the value of the property had been materially impaired.
(3.) VINOD Kumar Arora -tenant, in his reply, denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was averred that Arjan Singh had died issueless and the respondents had no concern with the suit property. On the pleadings of the parties, following issued were framed by the Rent Controller: - 1.Whether there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties? OPA 2. Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.3.2006 ? OPA 3. Whether the demised premises has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation ? OPA 4. Whether the respondent has changed the user of the demised premises from business to residential portionwithout the consent of applicant ? OPA 5. Whether the petition is not maintainable ? OPR 6. Whether the petitioners are stopped by their own act and conduct from the filing the petition ?OPR 7. Whether petitioners are not successor of Arjan Singh ? OPR 8. Relief. Parties led their evidence in support of their case. In order to prove that the respondents were legal heirs of Arjan Singh, Prabhjeev Singh Miglani appeared as AW -1 and he tendered in evidence his attested copy of the passport as Ex.A -2. As per the said document Prabhjeev Singh Miglani was recorded as son of Arjan Singh and the name of his mother was recorded as Kulwant Kaur Miglani. Although, a plea was taken by the petitioner that the said passport was prepared in the year 2002 much after the death of Arjan Singh but the Appellate Authority has noticed that on the second page of the passport, there was an endorsement of the High Commission of India that the holder of the passport had travelled on passport No. L -216695 dated 14.5.1992. This showed that Prabhjeev Singh Miglani was having the passport depicting Arjan Singh as his father much prior to the filing of the ejectment petition. Copies of the passport of other respondents were also proved on record.It has also been noticed by the Appellate authority that RW -1 Rishi Arora had stated in his cross -examination that he had paid rent to the respondents admitting them to be the landlord vide Ex.A -11. He also stated that they had never disputed the relations of landlord and tenant between the parties in the earlier proceedings. He also admitted that he had filed an injunction suit against the respondents claiming them to be the landlord. In these circumstances, learned Courts below rightly decided issue No.1 in favour of the respondents.;