JUDGMENT
J.S. Khehar, J.
1. The petitioner before this Court for reasons of convenience is being described as the petitioner-landlady. She claims to be the owner of the land in question. She did filed an ejectment application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, wherein she sought ejectment of the respondent/tenant-Badri on two counts. First, non-payment of rent for the period from 1.1.1978 to 17.10.1981. And secondly, that the petitioner requires the plot in question for her own use and occupation. It would be pertinent to mention that the respondent/tenant opposed the ejectment application by adopting the stance that he himself was the owner of the plot in question and further that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
2. The Rent Controller by his order dated 21.4.1985, (while deciding Issue No. 2), arrived at a conclusion that there was a subsisting relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Having arrived at the aforesaid conclusion, the Rent Controller ordered the ejectment of the respondent/tenant-Badri by concluding that the tenant had not paid arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.1.1978 to 17.10.1981 and also on account of the fact that the premises was required by the petitioner/landlord for her own use and occupation.
3. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the Rent Controller, the respondent/tenant Badri preferred an appeal against the order of the Rent Controller dated 21.4.1984. The Appellate Authority accepted the appeal on 10.6.1985 by upholding the contention of the respondent/tenant that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The Appellate Authority thus reversed the findings recorded by the Rent Controller on issue No. 2. The sole bone of contention of the petitioner, before this Court, is the finding recorded by the Appellate Authority on issue No. 2.
4. In the absence of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I have perused the order of the Appellate Authority dated 10.6.1985. While adjudicating upon issue No. 2, the Appellate Authority has arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner/landlady-Kailash Wati could not establish her ownership vis-a-vis the land in question. In order to establish her ownership right, the petitioner/landlady-Kailash Wati had produced a photocopy of a sale deed. In order to establish due execution of the sale deed, she had produced Hari Chand the alleged scribe of the sale deed as AW2 before the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller accepted the aforesaid evidence produced by the petitioner/landlady as sufficient to establish due execution of the sale deed. The Rent Controller, therefore, concluded that there was a subsisting relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Since no other evidence was produced before the Rent Controller on the issue of ownership other than the statement of petitioner/landlady herself as AW1 and Hari Chand as AW2, it is obvious that none of the witnesses to the sale document has authenticated and/or confirmed due execution of the sale deed. Therefore, it is not possible for me to accept that the sale deed relied upon by the landlady can be accepted to have been duly proved on the basis of evidence recorded at the behest of the petitioner. In view of the above. I do not find any infirmity in the conclusion drawn by the Appellate authority on the issue of ownership of the petitioner/landlady vis-a-vis the land in question,
5. In so far issue of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is concerned, the unambiguous case of the petitioner/landlady set up in the ejectment application is that she had leased the land in question to the respondent/tenant-Badri on 1.10.1977. In fact, it is her express case that he respondent/tenant Badri took possession of the land from the petitioner on the aforesaid dated 1.10.1977. The stance adopted in the ejectment application in respect of the date of commencement of the tenancy has not been corroborated by any of the witnesses produced by the petitioner/landlady to her aforesaid contention, namely, that the premises in question was let out by her to the respondent/tenant-Badri on 1.10.1977. This plea raised in the ejectment application has been vehemently contested by the respondent/tenant-Badri by asserting that ,he was owner by adverse possession on account of having come into occupation by the land in question well before the alleged date on which the petitioner/landlady asserts that the tenancy was created by her in favour of the respondent/tenant. Besides the oral statement of the respondent/tenant recorded as RW-1, he has also relied upon Jamabandi for the year 1975-76 wherein Kundan Singh has been shown to be in possession of the suit land. The aforesaid Kundan Singh appeared as a witness on behalf of the respondent/ tenant-Badri and asserted during the course of his examination that he himself along with Badri are in joint possession of the plot in question. In other words, the respondent/tenant-Badri has been able to establish that he came into possession and occupation of the land in question well before 1.10.1977, (the date on which the petitioner/landlady-Kailash Wati alleges, she handed over the possession of the land in question to respondent/tenant-Badri). The claim of the petitioner/landlady Kailash Wati is obviously contrary to the revenue record as also the collective statements of RW-1 and RW-2. The most important evidence to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant is the passing of consideration as rent. No acceptable evidence has been produced at the hands of the landlady establishing the payment of rent by Badri to her. The only witness produced by the landlady besides herself is Hari Chand RW2. Hari Chand is the landlady’s brother-in-law. Even Hari Chand did not affirm the passing of rent from Badri to Kailash Wati.
6. In view of the above, it is apparent that there is absolutely no material on the record of the case to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The Appellate Authority was, therefore, well justified in recording its finding against the petitioner-landlady on issue No. 2.
7. For the reasons recorded above, I find no infirmity in the order of the Appellate Authority.
