Gokal Chand Mital, J. - (1.) AN important point of law arises in this revision as to whether an order of ejectment can be passed under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter called the Act) against a tenant solely on the ground that he denied the relationship of landlord and tenant in the ejectment proceedings. The point arises out of the following facts.
(2.) OM Parkash brought an application for ejectment under Section 13 of the Act against Jai Gopal alleging that the shop was in the tenancy of Jai Gopal at a monthly rent of Rs. 75 from August 14, 1970 and that he is in arrears of rent from January 1, 1975 onwards and that the tenant had decreased the rental value of the demised shop by damaging the same. The application for ejectment was, therefore, based on two statutory grounds namely the tenant being in arrears of rent and having damaged the demised premises. On the first date of hearing the tenant paid all the arrears of rent with costs within the statutory period and, therefore, the ground of ejectment on this account ceased to exist. The tenant denied the other ground, but while doing so denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The Rent Controller after trial found that neither the ground of ejectment for arrears of rent survived nor the ground of ejectment of diminishing the value of the property by damaging the same was established. However, the landlord urged before the Rent Controller that the order of ejectment should be passed against the tenant as on denial of tenancy by the tenant the tenancy stood terminated and as such the order of ejectment should be passed. This point did not find favour with Rent Controller and the application for ejectment was dismissed by an order dated January 25, 1978. Against the order of the Rent Controller the landlord filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority found that none of the two grounds of ejectment pleaded in the application for ejectment was established, but found that it was proved on the record that Om Parkash was the owner of the property and that Jai Gopal had throughout been admitting Om Parkash as his landlord. However, since the tenant disclaimed the title of Om Parkash by raising the plea that no relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties, his tenancy stood determined. It will be useful to quote the words of the learned Appellate Authority in this case which are reproduced as under: It stands fully proved that Om Parkash Appellant is the owner of the demised shop ever since the decree, certified copy Ex. AX, was passed in his favour on 2nd June, 1972 and that Jai Gopal Respondent has throughout been admitting Om Parkash Appellant as his landlord. If in spite of that, in the proceedings, out of which this appeal has arisen, Jai Gopal Respondent has disclaimed the title of Om Parkash Appellant by raising the plea that no relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties, and his tenancy is held to have been determined because of the same, he has only to thank himself.
(3.) AFTER coming to the above finding and after following the Single Bench judgment in Smt. Suhag Rani v. Sukhdev, 1971 C.L.J. 391 and a Division Bench judgment in Seha Ram v. Gajan, 1970 C.L.J. 88 of this Court and after not giving much weight to Kanti Lal v. Smt. Ashok Lata : A.I.R. 1977 Pat 118, Hindustan Trust v. C. S. Gupta, 1971 R.C.R. 879 Del, and Madan Lal v. Zahur Hussain and Anr., 1973 R.C.R. 695 (J&K), the Appellate Authority passed an order of ejectment dated November 28, 1978 against the tenant on the sole ground of disclaimer of tenancy. The tenant has come up in revision to this Court against the aforesaid order of the Appellate Authority ordering the ejectment.;