- (1.) This revision petition is directed against the concurrent judgments of the Rent Controller, Hissar and the Appellate Authority (Under the Rent Restriction Act) Hissar vide which the petitioners have been ordered to be evicted from the demised premises. The facts giving rise to this petition are as under :-
(2.) Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 1 were occupying the demised premises as allottees under the Custodian on payment of rent. Subsequently the portion allotted to Thakar Dass, petitioner No. 1, was transferred in favour of Vidya Sagar, respondent No. 1. Thakar Dass, however, continued occupying his portion of the house and also did not pay any rent to Vidya Sagar, respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 then made an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for the eviction of the petitioners on the ground of non-payment of rent, subletting and material alterations in the building which impaired the utility and the value of the house. This application was resisted by the petitioner No. 1 and he denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. However, he tendered the arrears of rent on the first date of hearing. The parties contested on the following issues :- 1. Whether the respondents are liable for ejectment from the premises in dispute on the plea as alleged in para Nos. 5 (1 to 9) of the application 2. Whether respondent No. 1 is the real owner of the premises in dispute and the applicant is benami owner of the premises in dispute as mentioned in the written statement, if so, then to what effect 3. Whether a relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the applicant and the respondent No. 1 as alleged and to what effect (objected to) 4. Relief. The learned Rent Controller decided issue No. 1 in favour of respondent No. 1 Vidya Sagar and held that the petitioners were liable to be ejected from the demised premises on the ground of sub-letting and material impairment to the building. Issues No. 2 was also decided in favour of the landlord and it was held that he was the real owner of the property in dispute. Issue No. 3 was also decided in favour of the landlord-respondent No. 1 and it was held that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. Dissatisfied with the order of the learned Rent Controller, the petitioners unsuccessfully appealed to the Appellate Authority, which affirmed the findings on all the issues before the learned Rent Controller. Hence this petition. Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners respondents contended that petitioner No. 1 cannot be considered as a tenant of landlord-respondent No. 1 in view of the provisions of Section 29 of the Displaced Persons Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the notification issued under sub-section 2) of Section 29 of the Act, that he will be tenant only if at the relevant date of transfer he was not in arrears of rent of the Custodian. In fact this is most relevant issues on which the arguments were addressed by both the parties at length. Mr. Jain relied on Gurcharan Singh v. Devki Nandan and another, 1970 72 PunLR 651and Sardara Singh v. Smt. Parvati, 1971 CurLJ 623. There is no dispute about the principles of law as laid down in these authorities. Even Mr. Ram Rang, learned counsel for the landlord-respondents concedes that these authorities lay down the correct proposition of law. In the present case, only dispute is regarding the date of transfer of the property in dispute in favour of landlord-respondent No. 1 by the Custodian. According to Mr. Jain, the actual transfer took place in the year 1960 and, therefore, that is the date which should be taken as the date of actual transfer of the property in dispute in favour of landlord-respondent No. 1 and that if that date is to be taken into account, then the benefit of Section 29 of the Act is available to the petitioner No. 1, because he was in arrears of rent and he would not be deemed to be a tenant. But, according to Mr. Ram Rang, learned counsel for the respondents, the date mentioned in the sale-deed to be taken as the date from which the transfer took place. For his contention he relied upon Parma Nand v. Sarud Singh, 1970 72 PunLR 687, Mst. Ranjit Kaur and another v. Harbel Singh, 1963 65 PunLR 1023 and Jaimal Singh and another v. Smt. Gini Devi alias Gini Bai, 1964 66 PunLR 99. These are all Division Bench authorities of this court. He also relied upon Shri Mohammad Mahibulla, Secretary, Punjab Wakf Board Ambala Cantt.: and others v. Seth Chaman Lal (Deceased) and others,1978 2 RentLR 268. The most relevant authority applicable to the facts of the present case in Mst. Ranjit Kaur and others v. Harbel Singh, 1963 65 PunLR 1023, in which an indentical question arose, and it was held by their Lordships that where the conveyance deed specifically provided that the property was being transferred which effect from 1st October, 1955 by virtue of Rule 34 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955, the property would be deemed to have been transferred with effect from 1st October, 1955, because this date was, by a special order, specified in the deed of conveyance itself. In the present case, the transfer of property took place under Rule 31 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules 1955 and the date of transfer is given under rule 34 of the said Rules. The date in the conveyance-deed is 1st October, 1955 and, admittedly, on that date landlord respondent No. 1 was the owner of the property in dispute. In this view of the matter, I Hold that the date mentioned in the conveyance deed is to be treated as the date of transfer of the property in dispute and not the date of actual transfer. It is in fact the conveyance deed which gives the title of ownership to landlord-respondent No. 1.
(3.) So far as the other issues are concerned, these are pure findings of fact arrived at by both the courts below and I do not find any cogent reason to upset those findings.;