- (1.) This case with a chequered past has come before us on a reference made by my learned brother, M.R. Sharma, J., under the following circumstances.
(2.) On 28th January, 1969, Hindi Sahitya Sadan, a registered body of Mandi Dabwali filed an application for ejectment of Vaid Ram Gopal predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners, from the premises in question on the various grounds including the non-payment of rent, raising of unauthorised construction and personal necessity, etc. under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949. The respondent-tenant contested the application and not only denied his statues as a tenant under the applicant, but also raised a plea that he had become owner of the premises in question by way of adverse possession. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues on 2nd May, 1969 and also subsequently added two more issues (5-A & 5-B) on 14th November, 1969:- (1) Whether respondent is tenant on the premises in dispute under the applicant (2) Whether respondent is liable to be ejected from the premises in dispute in case issue No. 1 is proved on the grounds given in para 3 of the application. (3) Whether application is within limitation (4) Whether respondent has become owner of the premises in dispute by way of adverse possession (5) Whether application is not maintainable in the present form (5-A) Whether a valid notice of the type envisaged under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was served by the petitioner on the respondent before institution of this petition. If not to what effect (5-B) Whether Ram Kishan Gupta has no locus standi to file the petition (6) Relief.
(3.) After recording a firm finding on issue No. (1) on the basis of oral and documentary evidence that the respondent was a tenant of the petitioner on the date of the application and thus the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties, he had held under issue No. (4) that he, as a Rent Controller, could not determine the question of ownership or title as he had no jurisdiction in that regard. He left the issue open and as a result of decision of other issues he ordered the eviction of the respondent. On an appeal by the tenant, the appellate authority (District Judge, Hissar) confirmed the finding of the Rent Controller on issue No. (1) and regarding issue No. (4), he held that in view of the findings on issue No. (1), it was not necessary for him to decide issue No. (4). So the net result is that both the courts had firmly held that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties and so far as the plea of the tenant that he had become owner of the property in question through adverse possession, the same was not decided for the reason that these courts had no jurisdiction to decide the question of title raised by the tenant.;