SHIV PARSHAD Vs. SHILA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed by Shiv Parshad against the order of the Appellate Authority, Solan, dismissing his appeal against the order of the Rent Controller ordering his eviction from the premises situate in Khasra Plot No. 941/ 831/3, Khewat No. 209, Khatauni No. 343 of village Ser Pargana Takroli, Tehsil Solan. The petitioner was in occupation of the premises. Smt. Shilla Rani who is now respondent in this Court alleged herself to be the landlady of the premises and she filed the application under the provisions of Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act for the eviction of the present petitioner on the ground that he was in arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 126/- and that she required the premises for her bona fide use. The present petitioner resisted the application pleading inter alia that there was no relationship ot landlady and tenant between the parties and that he was not served with a notice as is required under Section 106, T. P. Act and that the petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground that the premises were outside the municipal limits and that the petition had been filed with a mala fide intention.

(2.) The Rent Controller by his separate order held that the relationship of landlady and tenant subsisted between the parties. Further, that Shiv Parshad petitioner was in arrears of rent. It had also been held that the tenancy had been determined by the respondent taking the plea in his written statement that there was no relationship between the parties qua the premises in question. That being so, it was not necessary for the landlady to issue a notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act. It was however, held that the petitioner had failed to establish her bona fide requirement of the premises. Against the order directing the petitioner's eviction, he went in appeal. The Appellate Authority affirmed the order of the Rent Controller to the effect that the tenant had denied the title of the landlady and, therefore, the notice terminating the tenancy was not necessary in the case and that Shri Shiv Parshad failed to prove that the petition filed by Smt. Shilla Rani was not maintainable under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act and he, therefore, dismissed the appeal.

(3.) The main point, therefore, requiring decision is whether by the denial of the title of the landlady by the tenant in his written statement the tenancy got determined; if so, was there no necessity to issue a notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act to determine the tenancy. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no repudiation of the title of the landlord/landlady by the tenant viz., Shri Shiv Parshad. In order to hold that there has been repudiation or denial of the title of the landlord by a tenant there should be a disclaimer of the landlord's title in clear and unequivocal words made to the knowledge of the landlord and that in the instant case there is no such clear and unequivocal repudiation made to the knowledge of the landlady by Shri Shiv Parshad. As such the decision of the appellate authority holding that there was repudiation of the title of the landlady by the tenant was wholly erroneous and he has referred me to the statement of the tenant, (petitioner in this Court) and has also relied upon Raja Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan v. Municipal Board of Sitapur, AIR 1963 SC 1923. He has also submitted that the Punjab authority Sada Ram v. Gajjan, (1970) 72 Pun LR 223 = (AIR 1970 Punj 511), relied upon by the Appellate Authority was contrary to what has been stated in the aforesaid Supreme Court authority. In 1965 Supreme Court case the appellant held nazul land subject to payment of nominal rent, which had been unvarying as long as was known. There was no document evidencing the lease. Its origin was shrouded in obscurity. A bunglow was constructed on a part of the property in dispute which was originally owned by another from whom the appellant's predecessor had purchased it. The appellant's ancestor was the then Taluqdar. Certain properties including the one in dispute were annexed by him to the Taluqdari and were declared subject to the Oudh Estates Act, 1869. This deed which was executed under the terms of Section 32-A of the Oudh Estates Act, was registered on August 12, 1918. The land in dispute was being acquired under Section 9 of the Rehabilitation of Refugees Act 26 of 1948. Before the Land Acquisition Officer, a contention was raised by the Government that the appellant was merely a non-occupancy tenant and was entitled to only one year's rent as compensation. It was claimed by the appellant that he and his ancestors had been owners of the land and had been exercising 'permanent, heritable and transferable rights' in the land openly and to the knowledge of and with the consent of the Government. He, therefore, claimed that he was entitled to a sum of Rs. 52,900 as compensation for its acquisition. Alternatively he prayed that if his claim as to the amount of compensation was not accepted the matter may be referred for decision to the Court for adjudication. The Compensation Officer, however, rejected the claim of the appellant to the title that he claimed to the property. Paragraph 2 of the claim application of the appellant before the Land Acquisition Officer ran: "The land acquired is part of Jali Kothi or Bunglow belonging to me, in the Civil Lines, Sitapur". After reciting in paragraph 4 the declaration made by his ancestor under Section 32-A Oudh Estates Act the appellant proceeded in paragraph 5 to state: