Jagan Nath v. Shanti Devi

A. D. Koshal, J. - The building in dispute forms part of house No. W. D. 156, situated in Jullundur City which admittedly belonged to one Mohd. Ahmed who became an evacuee. The house was purchased through a sale certificate dated the 7th of July, 1964 (Exhibit A/2) by the petitioner from the Custodian of Evacuee Property (hereinafter called the Custodian). Claiming that she inducted the respondent as a tenant into the building in dispute, the petitioner made an application, under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act praying for his eviction on the ground that he has fallen into arrears with regard to the payment of rent which was due at a rate of Rs. 40/- per mensem since the Ist of March, 1968. The application was controverted by the respondent with the sole plea that no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the petitioner and himself. The Controller found that although the petitioner had become the owner of house No. W. D. 156 by purchase from the Custodian, there was no acceptable evidence of the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between her and the respondent. The petitioner's application was, therefore, dismissed. In appeal the learned Appellate Authority accepted the application holding that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties followed from the provisions of section 29 of the displaced persons (compensation & rehabilitation) act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the act) and also from the entries in the assessment register maintained by the Municipal Committee, Jullundur for the period 1965 to 1970 according to which the respondent was recorded as a tenant in the building in dispute under the petitioner at a monthly rent of Rs. 40/-. Consequently the Appellate Authority directed the eviction of the respondent from the building in dispute and it is his order which is challenged in revision before me. 2. The contents of the assessment register (Exhibit P. 1) maintained by the Municipal Committee, Jullundur for the period 1965 to 1970 deserve careful scrutiny. The relevant column is 5 which is headed "Name of the person in possession with his parentage, caste and place of residence, if he is a person different from the owner.". In this column appears the following entry :- "1. Jagan Nath 40/- 2R+K 2. Avtar Singh 30/- 2R+Shed" 70/ The learned Appellate Authority read this entry as meaning that Jagan Nath respondent was occupying 2 rooms and a kitchen as a tenant at Rs. 40/- per month while Avtar Singh was similarly occupying another portion of the house at Rs. 30/-, per month and that the total rent payable to the petitioner (who is of course shown to be the owner of the premises being house No. W. D. 156) was Rs. 70/- per month. I am afraid this conclusion cannot be drawn from the entry. The official who prepared it had to mention the name and the description of (lie person in possession and it was no part of his duty to specify the capacity of the occupant on the conditions on which he had held the premises. The figures 40 and 30 are, therefore, not capable of interpretation that they represented the rates of monthly rent respectively payable by the occupants in question. On the other hand, the figures may well have. represented the estimated annual letting value of various portions and such value may or may not have any relation to the rent payable, if at all any such rent was being paid. From the entry in the assessment register, therefore, it cannot be concluded that any relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties (although it can certainly be made out that the petitioner was the owner of house No. W. D. 150 while the respondent was occupying a portion of it). The finding arrived at by the learned Appellate Authority to the contrary is reversed. In order to appreciate the second point involved in this controversy, the relevant portion of section 29 of the Act may be reproduced here with advantage. "29. Where any person to whom the provisions of this section apply, is in lawful possession of any immovable property of the class notified under subsection (2), which is transferred to another person under the provisions of this Act, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, such person shall, without prejudice to any other right which he may have in the property be deemed to be a tenant of the transferee on the same terms and conditions as to pay of rent or otherwise on which he held the property immediately before the transfer : ........ The section admittedly deals with evacuee property and it is apparent that before a person can be deemed to be a tenant of the transferee from the Custodian under its provisions, he must be shown to be in lawful possession thereof. Now it is true that the respondent was in possession of the building in dispute but the parties are not at one about the time when he gained such possession or about the capacity in which he gained it. According to the petitioner, it was she who inducted him into it after it was transferred to her. If that be so, section 2) does not come into play at all. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondent that he occupied the building in dispute in 1947 and continued to occupy it, without any right or title. If this stand is taken at its face value, again the section is not applicable because it does pot operate unless the occupant is shown to be in lawful possession. There is no third version before the court of the manner in which the respondent came to occupy the building in dispute and, therefore, no third argument in favour of the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. 3. I have not discussed the oral evidence led by the petitioner in support of her case and there is a good reason for it. Both the courts below have held that this evidence is unreliable and after going through it I see no reason to come to a contrary finding. 4. In the result, the petition succeeds and is accepted. The order of the Appellate Authority is set aside and the application made by the landlady for the eviction of the respondent is dismissed. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs. Revision accepted.