- (1.) Gora Lal and his two brothers filed an application for eviction of their sister's son. Bachan Lal Petitioner from the alleged tenancy premises comprised of three rooms and a courtyard. It is the common case of both sides that Sheela Devi, the sister of the respondents, in occupation of the two out of the three rooms and courtyard since before the tenancy of the petitioner started and she continues to be in possession of that part of the premises in dispute. In July 21, 1965, the respondents obtained rent note Exhibit A. 1, from the petitioner in respect of the entire premises in dispute. The rent note stated that the tenancy would commence from July 1, 1965 and the rate of rent would be Rs. 20/- per month. The rent note was signed by Groa Lal respondent only. Rent was also paid by the petitioner to Gora Lal alone. All the three respondents had, however, filed the application jointly on the allegation that they were the joint owners of the disputed premises. The only relevant ground on which eviction was sought of personal requirement of the premises for the tethering of their cattle. The petitioner paid out all arrears of rent at the stipulated rate but contested the application on the ground that the respondent's sister was in possession of the disputed house as an owner but the petitioner had been persuaded by Gora Lal respondent to execute the Rent note on the representation that on execution thereof Gora Lal would be able to put the petitioner in possession of the entire premises by taking away the two rooms and courtyard from his (Gora Lal's) sister, but Gora Lal had failed to deliver possession of the entire disputed premises and that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the application was liable to be dismissed.
(2.) By his order dated June 9, 1972, Shri P.C. Singal, Rent Controller, Patiala, held that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between Kishan Chand and Prem Chand respondents on the one hand and the petitioner on the other and that possession of the whole of the disputed house had never been given to the petitioner in pursuance of the Rent note Exhibit A.1. On the merits of the claim, all that Rent Controller stated in his judgment was :- "The applicants have alleged that they required the disputed house for using it as a cattle-shed and in support of this allegation they have examined a number of witnesses who have supported their allegations. I find no grounds to disbelieve their statements on this points. It has been laid down by our Hon'ble High Court time and again that due weight should be given to the statement on oath of a landlord regarding his personal needs. Ample safeguards have been provided to the tenant under section 13 of the Act to take back the possession of the tenanted premises if the landlord does not shift to it within a period of twelve months for the date of the taking its possession. The respondent has failed to prove that the requirement of the applicants is not bonafide and as such, this issue (issue No. 2) is decided in favour of the applicant.' As a result of his above-mentioned findings, he dismissed the claim of Kishan Chand and Prem Chand on the ground that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between them and the petitioner and dismissed the entire application in view of his finding that the possession of the whole house had not been given to the petitioner in pursuance of the rent note.
(3.) The respondents went up in appeal to the Court of Shri J.S. Mander. Appellate Authority (District Judge) Patiala. By his order under revision dated September 3, 1973. The learned Appellate Authority upheld the finding of the Lower Court on the question of personal requirement on the ground that it had not been challenged before him. That finding has not been questioned even in the grounds for revision of the order of the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority confirmed the findings of fact recorded by the Rent Controller about there being no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the two respondents, other than Gora Lal. The findings of the Rent Controller about the petitioner never having been given possession of two out of the three rooms was also affirmed in the following words :- "Therefore, the finding of the Rent Controller that Sheela Devi was in possession of a part of this house at the time of the execution of the rent note Exhibit A. 1, is correct and I affirm the same. It may be mentioned here that the respondent's (tenant's) case himself in this connection is that he was snot given the possession of the entire house and that Sheela Devi was in occupation of two rooms and a compound of this house. One room of this house is admittedly in possession of the respondent Bachan Lal which was given to him as the time of the execution of the rent note Exhibit A.1. So that it is the case of the parties and also it is in the evidence that only possession of one room of the house in question was given to the respondent at the time of the execution of the rent note Exhibit A. 1, while two rooms and a compound of the house were already in possession of Sheela Devi, his mother. The finding of the Rent Controller on this point also appears to be correct and is affirmed." Having affirmed all the relevant findings of the Rent Controller, the learned Appellate Authority by some process, which is beyond comprehension, ordered the eviction of the petitioner from the entire premises in dispute, i.e. even from the two rooms and the courtyard which had admittedly never been given to the petitioner in pursuance of the rent note and which had all alone continued to be in the possession of the respondent's sister. The Appellate Authority appears to have been influenced by the fact that Sheela Devi was the mother of the petitioner. He should not have forgotten that she was also the sister of the respondents. Valid tenancy having been held to exist only between Gora Lal and the petitioner, the order of eviction was passed in favour of Gora Lal alone.;