R.N. Mittal, J. - (1.) This revision petition has been filed by Nota Ram tenant against the order of the Appellate Authority Sonepat dated Nov. 18, 1978.
(2.) The case of Anant Parshad Jain is that he was the owner of the property in dispute and his father had leased it to the tenant on April 15, 1952, on a monthly rent of Rs. 2.50 Paise. It is further averred that the tenant had not paid the rent from Dec. 1, 1972 to Oct. 31, 1974. He, consequently filed an application for ejectment on the ground of non-payment of rent. The application was contested by the tenant who inter alia pleaded that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between them and that he (tenant) was the owner of the property. He further said that therefore the question of payment of rent did not arise. The learned Rent Controller held that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He, therefore, dismissed the application for ejectment The landlord went up in appeal before the Appellate Authority who reversed the finding of the Rent Controller and held that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Consequently, it accepted the appeal and Passed an order of ejectment of the tenant The tenant has come up in revision against the order of the Appellate Authority to this Court. The only question that arises for determination in the present case is as to whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The learned Appellate Authority after taking into consideration the oral as will as the documentary evidence came to the conclusion that Anant Parshad Jain was the landlord and Nota Ram was the tenant under him. I hate gone through the order of the Appellate Authority and find that there is no scope for interference in it.
(3.) Mr. Sarin, learned counsel for the petitioner sought to argue that a complicated question of title has arisen in the case and, therefore, the Appellate Authority should have asked the landlord to get the matter decided from the civil Court, and that he should have stayed the proceedings in appeal. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on Messrs. Kharati Ram Bansi Lal and others Vs. Smt. Radha Rani and others, 1968 P.L.R. 978 . I regret my inability to accept the contention of the learned counsel. The learned Bench held that the Rent Controller is not debarred from determining the question whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties when the Petitioner seeks the eviction of the respondent under Sec. 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act and the respondent specifically denied the relationship and either Bets up his own title to the premises or denies the title of the landlord to the premises. Mere fact that tenant denied the relation ship of landlord and tenant will not oust the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller to determine that question. From the above observations it is evident that even the Bench does not say that if the question of title has been raised by the tenant, the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to decide the case. In the present case, the landlord has produced a rent note executed by the tenant as far back as 1952. It has not been shown by him that he had surrendered the possession of the property to the landlord after taking it on lease from him. In the circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot derive any benefit from the aforesaid case.;