G.C.GARG, J. - (1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated September 28, 1992 of the learned Rent Controller allowing an application for framing of additional issues.
(2.) BALA Devi and others filed an application for ejectment of the tenants on the allegations that the premises had been let out to respondent No. 1 by their predecessor Bishamber Dayal on August 1, 1981. 3. The tenants, inter alia, pleaded that they took the premises on rent from Lala Kanshi Ram and that the premises were not let out to them by Bishamber Dayal. It was also pleaded that rent upto December, 1986 had been paid to Lala Kanshi Ram. Learned Rent Controller by order dated May 10, 1988 framed the following issues :1. Whether the respondents are liable to be evicted from the premises in dispute on the grounds mentioned in the petition? OPP 2. Whether the premises in dispute were let out to M/s. Ishwar Iron and Steel Industries by Kanshi Ram, if so to what effect? OPR 3. Whether the petitioners are estopped from filing the petition? OPR 4. Relief. 4. After conclusion of evidence by the parties, respondents filed an application for framing of additional issue, as to whether the demised premises were let out to respondent No. 1 by Bishamber Dayal. The application was opposed, Learned Rent Controller after hearing learned counsel for the parties not only - re-cast the issues already framed but also framed new issues as well. It is how the present revision came to be filed. 5. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. 6. The stand of the tenants in the written statement is that the demised premises had never been let out to them by Bishamber Dayal and that the same were taken on rent from Lala Kanshi Ram to whom the rent upto December 1986 had been paid. A reference to the pleadings of the tenants clearly brings out that they never admitted that the premises had been let out to them by Bishamber Dayal or that the latter was the owners thereof. It is the clear case of the tenants that they took the premises on rent from Lala Kanshi Ram. From the issues reproduced above it is clear that no issue about the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was framed though one such issue was required to be framed. It is not the case of the petitioners that they are the owners of the premises or that they became owners thereof before the filing of the ejectment petition either by inheritance or otherwise. It was rather admitted that Bishamber Dayal pre-deceased Lala Kanshi Ram and Lala Kanshi Ram died in the year 1990. Thus, in my view, learned Rent Controller was right in concluding that necessary issue arising out of the pleadings of the parties had not been framed, but the learned Rent Controller fell into an error in framing all the issues afresh. This was not required to be done. It was not even the prayer of the tenants in the application. The grouse was that another issue arising out of the pleadings of the parties had not been framed and the same be framed now. In the circumstances, the impugned order is modified and in addition to the issues already framed on May 10, 1988, only the following issue is framed: -A Whether there exits relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties? O. P. Parties. 7. With the above modification in the impugned order revision stands disposed of. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Rent Controller on May 16, 1994. No order as to costs. .;