JUDGMENT
Satish Kumar Mittal, J.
1. Roshan Lal-petitioner, who is the landlord has filed the instant revision petition against the order passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ambala, exercising the powers of the Appellate Authority under the provisions of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), vide which the ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller against the respondent-tenant was set aside and the ejectment application filed by the petitioner-landlord was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner could have established the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-landlord (for short, ‘the landlord’) filed the ejectment application against the respondent-tenant (for short, ‘the tenant’) under Section 13 of the Act for his ejectment from the demised premises inter-alia on the grounds of non-payment of rent and personal necessity. It was alleged that the house in question was let out to the tenant at monthly rent of Rs. 50/- plus house tax in the year 1976. The tenant has not paid the rent from 1.3.1979 to 28.2.1982. It was also alleged that the house in question is required for his personal necessity as he has retired from the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Madhya Pradesh about two years back. It was further alleged that he has. no other residential accommodation in the municipal limits of Yamuna Nagar. In spite of his asking, the tenant did not vacate the premises. Therefore, he filed the ejectment application on the aforesaid grounds.
3. Pursuant to the notice, the tenant appeared and contested the aforesaid ejectment application. He pleaded that neither the petitioner is his landlord nor he has taken the demised premises on rent from him. He alleged that no relationship of landlord and tenant exist between the parties. He further alleged that he is in possession of the demised premises for the last 14 years without any interruption from any person and in this-way, he is the sole owner of the demised premises and is not liable to pay any amount of rent to the landlord.
4. After taking into consideration the evidence led by both the parties and hearing the respective counsels, the Rent Controller allowed the ejectment application filed by the landlord. It was held that the relationship of landlord and tenant exist between the parties. The demised premises was rented out to the tenant and he has wrongly denied the title of the landlord. Since the tenant did not tender the rent demanded by the landlord on the first date of hearing, the issue of non-payment of rent was decided against him. The second issue regarding the personal necessity was also decided against the tenant and it was held that the landlord requires the demised premises for his personal bona fide necessity.
5. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order of the Rent Controller, the tenant filed the appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was allowed and the order passed by the Rent Controller, which was in favour of the landlord, was set aside. The Appellate Authority set aside the finding recorded by the Rent Controller on the issue of relationship of landlord and tenant and it was held that no relationship of landlord and tenant exist between the parties, As regards the other two issues, the findings recorded by the Rent Controller were affirmed.
6. Shri Hari Om Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Appellate Authority has wrongly set aside the finding recorded by the Rent Controller on the issue of relationship of landlord and tenant. He submitted that the landlord has established on record the relationship of landlord and tenant by producing oral as well as documentary evidence. While deciding this issue in favour of the landlord, the Rent Controller has given the valid reasons and recorded a finding in his favour, but the Appellate Authority without meeting those reasons has reversed the findings on the basis of conjectures and wrong inference drawn from the evidence brought on the record.
7. On the other hand, Ms. Sweena Pannu, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the order passed by the Appellate Authority is well reasoned and the same does not require any interference. She submitted that each and every evidence led by the landlord has been considered and the finding recorded by the Appellate Authority is neither wrong nor perverse, and the same does not require any interference in the instant revision petition. In support of her Dr. Gyan Parkash v. Som Nath and Ors., 1996 H.R.R. 57.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In my opinion, the Appellate Authority has wrongly set aside the finding recorded by the Rent Controller on the issue of relationship of landlord and tenant. The Rent Controller has recorded the finding on the aforesaid issue in favour of the landlord on the basis of the statement of the petitioner, who appeared as AW1 and categorically stated that the demised premises was given to the tenant on rent at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month in the year 1975. He further stated that the two months rent was paid in advance and after that he paid rent up to 1979 to his brother-in-law. Thereafter, he did not pay the rent. Since the landlord was serving at Madhya Pradesh, he authorised his brother-in-law to collect the rent from the tenant. In support of his version, he further examined AW3, who deposed that the house in question was let out to the tenant by the landlord at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month. This witness was cross-examined at length and nothing material could be extracted from his statement. In addition to that, the landlord has also produced on record the entries. from the house tax register prepared by the Municipal Committee, Yamuna Nagar for the assessment year 1975-76 about the property in question. In that, the petitioner has been shown as the owner of the property in question and the respondent has been recorded as a tenant at an annual rent of Rs. 300/-. This entry in the house tax register has been proved on recovered by AW2, House Tax Clerk of Municipal Committee, Yamuna Nagar.
9. On the other hand, the Rent Controller further noticed the stand taken by the tenant. In the written statement, the tenant pleaded that he is in possession of the demised premises for the last 14 years without any interruption and in this way he is the sole owner, of the property. He himself has not appeared in the witness box. RW1 Smt. Rafikan, who is the wife of the tenant appeared as attorney. In her statement, she stated that the house in question was constructed by the tenant on the land which was purchased by him from one Nathu, Gujjar. The stand taken in the statement was totally contradictory to the stand taken by her in the written statement. The Rent Controller, after noticing all these factors, has held that the tenant did not examine said Nathu, Gujjar and did not produce any material to show that the house in question was constructed by him. In addition to that, the Rent Controller noticed various contradictions in the statements of RW1 and RW2, who claimed himself to be the neighbour of the tenant and held that the testimony of these witnesses is self-contradictory and in variance with the pleadings. On the basis of the aforesaid reasoning, the Rent Controller found that the relationship of landlord and tenant is existing between the parties and the house in question was let out by the landlord to the tenant, who has wrongly denied the relationship of landlord and tenant.
10. On the contrary, the Appellate Authority has reversed the well reasoned order passed by the Rent Controller merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures by reading one sentence from the statements of the witnesses. The Appellate Authority tried to contradict the statement of the witnesses with the stand taken by the landlord. The Rent Controller, on the other hand, has read the statements of the witnesses as a whole and then drawn conclusion on the same. Regarding the statement of AW3-landlord, the Appellate Authority has observed that as per the statements of these witnesses, he was owner of the demised premises and had given the same on rent to the tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 50/- in April, 1975, whereas this witness has asserted that the respondent is tenant on the demised premises for the last 8 years when the ejectment application was filed, which means the respondent-tenant was in possession of the demised premises since March, 1974, In my opinion, the Appellate Authority has tired to read the statements of the witnesses and the pleadings in the manner in which the right conclusion cannot be arrived at. The statements of the witnesses should have been read as a whole and the Courts should take into consideration what the witness is saying in his deposition. The Appellate Authority has not considered the matter in its right perspective and reversed the judgment of the Rent Controller merely on the basis of conjectures. Regarding the house tax entry, the Appellate Authority has observed that by such documents, the relationship of landlord and tenant cannot be established. On the other hand, the Appellate Authority has completely ignored the observations made by the Rent Controller that the tenant has failed to establish his stand. Rather his stand taken in the written statement and in the evidence is contradictory to each other. In the present case, the tenant has not proved on record that in what capacity he is in possession of the demised premises and from whom he has purchased the same. The Appellate Authority has proceeded on the assumption that there is no need to discuss the evidence led by the tenant to know his stand because the burden of establishing the relationship of landlord and tenant lies upon the landlord, which, according to him, he has failed. The Appellate Authority further observed that it hardly matters in what capacity the tenant is in possession of the demised premises. I am of the opinion that this approach of the Appellate Authority is wholly erroneous. Though the initial burden was upon the landlord to establish that he was the owner of the house in question and the same was let out to the tenant, which he has successfully discharged in the present case by leading oral as well as documentary evidence, but on the other hand, the tenant has completely failed to prima facie establish as to in what capacity he is in possession of the demised premises. The stand taken by him in the written statement and at the time f evidence is completely contradictory. He did not lead an iota of evidence to establish that he has purchased the land from one Nathu Gujjar and raised construction thereon. In these circumstances and after taking into consideration the respective evidence led by both the parties, the Rent Controller had rightly arrived at the conclusion and decided the issue of relationship of landlord, and tenant in favour of the landlord and the Appellate Authority was not justified in reversing such finding. Therefore, the findings of the Appellate Authority on this issue are liable to be set aside. The Appellate Authority has reversed the order passed by the Rent Controller only on the issue of relationship of landlord and tenant. The findings recorded by it on the other two issues, i.e., non-payment of rent and personal necessity were not set aside nor those findings have been challenged by the learned counsel for the tenant while arguing the case.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 10.8.1987 is set aside and the application of ejectment filed by the landlord is allowed and the tenant is directed to vacate the premises within a period of three months.
12. No order as to costs.