- (1.) The broad facts leading to the filing of this petition for revision of the order of Shri Mohan Lal Jain, District Judge, Gurgaon (Appellate Authority, under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act), are not in dispute, and may first be noticed. The premises in dispute belonged to one Piara Lal and his brother. One Nathu Ram was at that time admittedly a tenant on the premises at the rate of Rs. 7/- per mensem. After the death of Piara Lal, this property came to the share of Smt. Laxmi Devi as a result of a family partition. Laxmi Devi subsequently sold the property by a registered deed of sale, dated June 27, 1966, in favour of Ram Chander. The said Ram Chander in turn transferred the rights of ownership in the property in question on October 5, 1971, in favour of the present petitioner Smt. Darshan Devi. In or about 1969 Nathu Ram died leaving behind his widow Kaushalya Devi and son Gopal, respondents 1 and 2 respectively in the present proceedings. On November 3, 1971, Darshan Devi petitioner filed an application for the ejectment of the widow and son of Nathu Ram inter alia, on the ground that they had sublet the premises to Mangat Ram respondent No. 3, and that the tenants had not paid the arrears of rent with effect from October 1, 1962, amounting to Rs. 763/-. By his judgment and order dated July 29, 1972, the Rent Controller allowed the application for ejectment on the ground of non-payment of rent. That order having been reversed and the application of the present petitioner for ejectment of the respondents having been dismissed by the above-mentioned order of the Appellate Authority, dated January 16, 1973, the landlord has come up to this Court for revision of the order of the Appellate Authority.
(2.) The only issue on which arguments were advanced before the Appellate Authority and on which again submissions have been made before me, issue No. 1, which is in the following terms :- "Is there relationship of landlord and tenants between the parties ?" The pleadings from which this issue arose consisted of the petition for ejectment, the written statement, and the replication of the petitioner. In the petition it was merely stated after giving reference to the manner in which the petitioner had become owner of the property that Nathu Ram who was the tenant at the rate of Rs. 7/- per mensem had died about one year and nine months prior to the institution of the case for ejectment, and that since then respondents 1 and 2 were occupying the premises as heirs of Nathu Ram, and were in possession of the premises as tenants of the petitioner. She then stated that she had terminated the tenancy of respondents 1 and 2 by a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, and claimed their ejectment for the reasons mentioned in the application. In the written statement of respondents 1 and 2, a preliminary objection was taken to the effect that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, and, therefore, the application was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed. The ownership of the property by the petitioner was denied, and it was further averred that respondents 1 and 2 having been in possession of the property for more than twelve years had become owners thereof by adverse possession. It was even denied that their predecessor-in-interest, namely Nathu Ram was a tenant of the premises. It was further added that by the death of Nathu Ram, the alleged tenancy had been extinguished and terminated, and, therefore, the possession of the premises by the respondents was not as tenants. It was in these circumstances that it was pleaded by respondents 1 and 2 that the Rent Controller being a Tribunal of summary jurisdiction could not go into the question of title and so the application for ejectment was liable to dismissal on that ground.
(3.) In the petitioner's replication, dated December 13, 1971, the preliminary objection was controverted, the original pleas of the petitioner reiterated, and it was stated that the Rent Controller could determine the question of relationship of landlord and tenant, and could even go into the incidental question of ownership of the property for deciding that matter. It was also averred that respondents 1 and 2 being the widow and son of Nathu Ram could not question the title of the landlord or their predecessor-in-interest. It was finally stated that the tenancy did not terminate on the death of Nathu Ram as it was a tenancy from month to month, which was heritable, and was in fact inherited by respondents 1 and 2.;