Sham Sunder, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been preferred by the tenant -petitioner against the judgment dated 18.8.1992, rendered by the Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge), Kapurthala, vide which the order dated 26.2.1991 rendered by the Rent Controller, Phagwara, was set aside and ejectment of the tenant -petitioner was ordered, on the ground, that the tender made on 20.1.1989 was invalid.
(2.) THE petitioner was inducted as a tenant, by Dharam Singh in the demised premises, at a monthly rental of Rs. 35/ -. The said property was sold vide sale deed dated 6.9.1973 by Dharam Singh, in favour of Niranjan Dass, landlord -respondent, and the arrears of rent were also assigned, in his favour. The ejectment of the petitioner was sought, on the ground, that he had been in arrears of the rent since 10.8.1973 onwards, till the filing of the ejectment petition on 12.8.1988. On the failure of the tenant -petitioner to pay the arrears of rent, the ejectment petition was filed by the landlord -respondent. In the written statement filed by the tenant -petitioner, it was admitted that he was inducted in the demised premises, as a tenant, at a monthly rental of Rs. 35/ - by Dharam Singh. It was denied for want of knowledge, that the said premises were transferred by Dharam Singh, in favour of Niranjan Dass. Arrears of rent from 10.8.1973 to 10.1.1989 at the rate of Rs. 35/ -per month, along with interest, and costs were tendered by the tenant -petitioner on 20.1.1989.
(3.) IN the replication filed by the landlord -respondent, he reasserted all the averments, made in the ejectment petition, and controverted those contained in the written statement. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were struck, by the Rent Controller, vide order dated 17.2.1989. 1. Whether the tender made by the respondent is valid? OPR 2. Whether the application is not maintainable in the present petition? OPR 3. Whether the applicant has no locus -stand to file he present application for ejectment? OPR 4. Whether the applicant is barred by his own act and conduct to file the present application for ejectment? OPR;