G.R.MAJITHIA,J - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority, Jullundur, whereby he accepted the appeal filed by the landlords and ordered ejectment of the tenant from the demised premises. Respondents 1 and 2 husband and wife, respectively (for short 'the landlords') filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, against Kulwinder Singh, Amarjit Singh and Dalip Singh for ejectment from the demised premises on the ground that they had purchased the demised premises through sale-deeds dated January 25, 1985 and March 20, 1985. They were living in the house of wife's parents as licensee for want of any residential accommodation of their own and they intended to take up residence in the demised premises. Mohinder Singh, father of Kulwinder Singh, was the original tenant. On the death of Mohinder Singh, Kulwinder Singh entered into possession of the demised premises and became a tenant under the landlord and he continued to pay rent at the of Rs. 72/- per month and thereafter he shifted his residence to a house, previously owned by Ramji Dass Vakil. Kulwinder Singh was in arrears of rent from January 20, 1985 and he had sublet the premises to Respondents 2 and 3, namely, Amarjit Singh and Dalip Singh without the written consent of the landlords as well as of their predecessor-in-interest.
(2.) KULWINDER Singh and Dalip Singh, the alleged sub-tenants, did not contest the application and were proceeded against ex parte and the contest was offered only by Amarjit Singh, who was arrayed as Respondent No. 2, hereinafter to be referred to as the tenant. He took the plea that Tarlok Singh, father of Amarjit Singh, Surinder Singh and Mohinder Singh, was the original tenant. Mohinder Singh, father of Respondent No. 1, namely, Kulwinder Singh, shifted to his house during the lifetime of Tarlok Singh. After the death of Tarlok Singh, his tenancy rights were inherited by Amarjit Singh, Dalip Singh, Surinder Singh and his widow Kartar Kaur. They were the direct tenants under the landlord. He also pleaded that Surinder Singh and Kartar Kaur are necessary parties to the petition. It was also pleaded that if it was not proved that they were not the tenants in the demised premises, then they had perfected their title by adverse possession. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- 1. Whether respondent No. 1 has sublet the demised premises in favour of respondents No. 2 and 3 ? OPA. 2. Whether the petitioners require the demised premises, for their personal use and occupation ? OPP. 3. Relief. The parties did not press for any other issue arising from the pleadings of the parties. It appears that the other pleas raised by the contesting respondent were waived. The counsel for the respondent closed his evidence on July 16, 1986. The contesting respondent led evidence to establish that he was in occupation of the demised premises. R.W.2, a clerk of Municipal Committee, Banga, proved that water connection was sanctioned on the request of the contesting respondent. R.W.3, who is an official of the Food and Supplies Department, Banga, proved that the Ration Card issued by the department in the name of the respondent showed his residential address as House No. 2772, Gandhi Nagar, Banga, which is the house in dispute. R.W.4, an official from the Punjab State Electricity Board, stated that the electric meter was issued in the name of Jeewan Singh and the address given was Jeewan Singh c/o Amarjit Singh, Gandhi Nagar, H.No. 2772, Banga. Later, Jeewan Singh was transferred to Ludhiana and with his consent, the electric meter was transferred in the name of the contesting respondent. The evidence led by the respondent is only to the effect that he is in occupation of the demised premises since 1977. It does not establish that he was in possession of the demised premises as a tenant under the predecessor-in-interest of the landlord petitioners. His plea that Tarlok Singh was the original tenant under the predecessor-in-interest of the landlord-petitioners, is not established by any evidence, documentary or oral. Once he had taken the plea that his father was a direct tenant under the original landlord, it was incumbent upon him to substantiate that plea. The contradictory stand taken by him in the written statement that if it is not proved that they were the tenants on the property in dispute, in that event they should be presumed to be in possession of the property in their own right, is destructive of the plea taken by them that their father as a direct tenant under the landlords predecessor-in-interest. The irreconcilable plea in the pleadings leaves an impression that the contesting respondent is not sure of his position. The landlords proved Assessment Register of Municipal Committee, Banga, relating to House Tax for the Assessment Year 1981-82. In the column "Name and Address or the Occupier", the names of Mohinder Singh and Ujagar Singh are mentioned. This document cannot to used to establish tenancy of Mohinder Singh on the property in dispute. However, it establishes one positive fact that Mohinder Singh was in possession of the property, which may not be as a tenant. The contesting respondent failed to establish that his father was a direct tenant under the predecessor-in-interest of the landlords. In these circumstances, the statements of the landlords cannot be brushed aside wherein it was categorically stated that Mohinder Singh was the tenant of the demised premises, which is corroborated by documentary evidence to the extent that Mohinder Singh was in possession. The possession of the contesting respondent cannot be in any other capacity except through Mohinder Singh, who was the original tenant, more particularly when he failed to prove the plea of direct tenancy taken by him. I accordingly hold that the plea of the landlords that the original tenant had sublet the premises to the contesting respondent stands proved from the file. The finding to the contrary recorded by the Appellate Authority in this regard is reversed.
(3.) THE learned Appellate Authority, after appraising the entire evidence, gave a firm finding that the demised premises are bonafide required by the landlords for their occupation. I do not find any irregularity in the appreciation of the evidence and in fact none was pointed out. I uphold the same. The learned counsel for the tenant-contesting respondent mainly stressed the plea that the landlords are residing in the house of their in-laws an they have got a legal right to stay in that house. The plea is not sustainable in law. Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act on which strong reliance has been placed by him is of no assistance to him. It only postulates that a dwelling unit in occupation of a male Hindu who is survived by male and female heirs specified in clause (1) of the Schedule, is not liable to partition at the instance of the female heir and the female heir if she is a daughter and unmarried is entitled to residence in the dwelling house. Admittedly, the landlords have no legal right to stay in the house which belonged to wife's father. I am satisfied from the evidence on record that their need is genuine. Consequently, the order under challenge is maintained. The revision petition is dismissed.;