Mahesh Grover, J. - (1.) C.M. No. 17165 -CII -2013 in C.R. No. 2163 of 2009 C.M. No. 17164 -CII -2013 in C.R. No. 2164 of 2009 C.M. No. 17179 -CII -2013 in C.R. No. 2761 of 2009
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the non -applicant states that he has no objection to the applications being allowed but this would be without prejudice to the rights of the parties in any other proceeding, if pending. Applications are allowed. Applicant -Lakhwinder Singh son of Narayan Singh is permitted to be impleaded as respondent No. 2 in the present revision petitions. Office is directed to make necessary correction in the memo. Of parties. C.R. Nos. 2163, 2164 and 2761 of 2009 By this order, I will dispose of three petitions namely C.R. Nos. 2163, 2164 and 2761 of 2009. The controversy involved is brief and centering around the claim of the respondent -landlord seeking eviction of the petitioners on the ground of non -payment of rent which fact is not being denied by the petitioners for the period set up in the petition but with a justification offered by disputing the relationship of landlord and tenant. The brief facts which are essential for the decision of the petition may be noticed. Concededly the petitioners were tenant under one Gurdial Singh, who sold the demised premises to the respondent, namely, Balbir Singh in the year 1995 by virtue of a registered sale deed which came to be questioned at some point of time by the legal representatives of deceased Gurdial Singh. This, in fact, offered an excuse to the petitioners to dispute the relationship of landlord and tenant with the present respondent. Even though the property was purchased by Balbir Singh in the year 1995, he preferred a rent petition in the year 1997 claiming arrears of rent from 20.7.1995 to June 1997 and seeking eviction of the petitioners on the ground of non -payment of rent. In this petition also, the petitioners took up the similar pleas that they had paid the rent to the LRs of original landlord i.e. Gurdial Singh and also denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. The rent petition was dismissed by the Rent Controller but in appeal the findings were reversed. The Appellate Authority held that no rent was demanded by the landlord w.e.f. July 1997, therefore, the present petitioners could not be held liable for eviction if they acquired the knowledge of the respondent being a landlord in 1997 if the filing of the rent petition by the respondent -landlord should be construed to be a sufficient notice of the acquisition of ownership. It further held that the plea of the petitioners disputing the relationship of landlord and tenant between the present respondent and themselves had to be negated.
(3.) THE findings of the Appellate Authority were not tested further. The present revision petitions had arisen from rent petitions filed by the respondent -landlord in the year 2004 claiming eviction of the petitioners again on the ground of non -payment of rent w.e.f. July 1997 onwards. In these proceedings also, the petitioners took up similar pleas disputing the relationship of landlord and tenant and offering it as an excuse for nonpayment of rent.;