Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. - (1.) Two pleas have been raised for setting aside the order passed by learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar. It has been urged as under:- a) That even after purchase of the property though Non Resident Indian- landlord had become the owner but he has not let out the premises. Therefore, he cannot be termed as landlord qua the tenant under Section 13B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act); b) That since the rent note contained a clause of arbitration, therefore, learned Rent Controller has no jurisdiction.
(2.) I have stated these grounds on opening note because the evidence and the contentions raised before the Court below negate these grounds. It is not disputed that premises were purchased by the landlord vide sale deed dated 9.2.1998 Ex.P2. It is also not disputed that landlord had written letter Ex.PX to the tenants informing them that he had purchased the property in dispute wherein a request was also made that rent be not paid to the previous landlord. This letter had been written by the landlord on 4.8.1998. This fact was reported by the Inspector, PUNSUP, an employee of tenant-petitioner to his higher authorities vide letter Ex.PY. Learned Rent Controller held that documents Ex.PX, PY & PZ establish relationship of landlord and tenant.
(3.) On a pointed question, asked by this Court whether the rent has been paid or not, it has been stated by Mr. Sandhawalia that earlier the landlord had brought an eviction petition on the ground of nonpayment of rent and in the same proceedings, rent was tendered, meaning thereby relationship of landlord was accepted. It is too late in the day now to dispute that the premises has not been let out by the landlord once in earlier proceedings he was accepted to be landlord. Even in earlier proceedings, status of landlord was not disputed.;