D.S.Lamba, J. - (1.) THE fasts leading to this Civil revision are that Smt. Kirna Devi landlord petitioner moved the learned Rent Controller, Patiala, under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called the Act), for ejectment of the tenant -respondent M.M. Berry, from house No. 562/2, situated in Gurnanak Street, Patiala, inter alias on the grounds : - (1) that the respondent was her tenant of the said premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 80/ - and that he had tailed to pay the rent from May to August, 1974, amounting to Rs. 320/ - besides house -tax at the rate of Rs. 12/ - per cent; (2) that on account of rains in the months of June and July, 1974, the house in question had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and she required the sane for reconstruction; and (3) that the tenancy had been terminated vide notices dated April 17, and July 2, 1974 besides her having filed the present ejectment application without any prejudice to the previous petition already pending on the ground of personal necessity. This application was resisted by the respondent denying the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties but admitting that he was tenant of the premises in dispute at the rate of Rs. 80/ - per mensem, including all types of rates taxes, repairs etc, taken on rent from one Siri Ram, whose order son Surinder Kumar, after the death of Siri Ram, had been collecting rent. Subsequently Sham Lal, another son of Siri Ram deceased, had been collecting the rent and that the said Sham Lal wanted to charge six months' rent in advance and to enhance the rent to Rs. 150/ - per month, which the respondent declined. It was pleaded that rent for the months of March and April 1974 had already been paid in Court He, however, added that rent for the month of May 1974 was offered to Kirna Devi, but she refused to accept the same and that she also refused to accept the amount sent to her by money order, vide Receipt No. 437', dated June 25, 1974. He further asserted that rent for the months of June and July 1974, sent through money orders vide Receipt Nos. 088 and 1199, dated July 24 and August 26, 1974, respectively, was also not accepted by Kirna Devi. It was, further averred that in view of the strict and drastic provisions of the Act, he bad to tender four months rent from 1st of May to 31st of August, 1974, amounting to Rs. 320/ besides Rs. 4/ - as interest and Rs. 25/ - as costs. It was denied that the premises in dispute were unfit and unsafe for human habitation.
(2.) ON the pleadings of the parties the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues on November 2, 1974. 1. Whether the tender is valid ? O.P.R. 2. Whether the property is unfit and unsafe for human habitation ? O.P.A. Whether the notice under section 106, Transfer of Property Act, is legal and proper ? O.P.A.
(3.) RELIEF Later, on the application of the tenant -respondent an additional issue No. 3 -A was also framed on January 16, 1975, which runs as follows : 3 -A Whether there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties ? O.P.A. 3. The landlord examined her husband Sohan Lal as A.W. 1 and closed her evidence in affirmative on March 18, 1975. The tenant respondent then examined Satpal R.W. 1 and himself appeared as R.W. 2 on May 23, 1975. 4. However, on May 28, 1975, the landlord bad moved an application for additional evidence by way of rebuttal, praying that she may be allowed to lead evidence as two receipts, dated 1st February 1974 and 1st December 1973, alleged to have been executed by Sham Lal had been brought on the record by the tenant -respondent and that she be allowed an opportunity to rebut the same. This application was resisted by the tenant and the same was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller, vide his order, dated August 2, 1975, and the case was fixed for arguments finally, on August 28, 1975, when Shri S.K. Goyal, counsel for the landlord, made a statement that he did not want to press the application for ejectment and the same may be dismissed as withdrawn. On this the statement of the tenant, M.M. Berry, and his counsel Shri Dev Raj Garg was recorded, which was to the following effect : - The respondent objects to the withdrawal of the application, he has been harassed and he be awarded special costs. After recording the above statements. Shri M.M. Bhalla, Rent Controller, Patiala passed the following order on August 20, 1975 : - The application is dismissed as withdrawn. There is no order as to costs. Ahlmad to consign the file.;