The denial of a landlord-tenant relationship does not absolve the tenant from rent payment, and evidence of habitability is required for eviction under the Act.

Vinod K.Sharma, J.

1. Landlord Sarabjit Singh had filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short the Act) against Narinder Singh, present petitioner for eviction from the shop in dispute on the ground that the petitioner herein was in arrears of rent from 1.1.1994 till the date of filing of the application. It was also pleaded that the shop in dispute had become unfit for human habitation.

2. In the written statement, the present petitioner denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :

"1. Whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties to the suit ? OPP

2. Whether respondent is in arrears of rent since 1.1.1994 ? OPP

3. Whether shop has become unfit for human habitation, if so its effect ? OPP

4. Relief."

3. Learned Rent Controller decided issue Nos. 1 and 2 against the present petitioner whereas issue No. 3 was decided in favour of the tenant. The Appellate Authority affirmed the findings on issue Nos. 1 and 2 whereas finding on issue No. 3 was reversed on the ground that the present petitioner had ceased to occupy the building for a period of 10 years and therefore it has become unfit for human habitation. However, learned counsel for the respondent agreed that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was not open to the Appellate Authority to reverse the finding on issue No. 3 in the absence of cross-objection having been filed. Therefore, the finding of the Appellate Authority on issue No. 3 cannot be sustained and it is reversed.

4. However, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that there existed no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. In fact, it was father of the petitioner who was tenant. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that admittedly Kashmir Singh, father of the present petitioner was the tenant under the previous owner and nothing has been brought on record to show how the tenancy was relinquished. He relied upon a judgment of this Court reported as Paramjit Singh v. Jora Singh, 1998(1) RCR(Civil) 209 : 1997(2) Civil Court Cases 696. The case of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that a presumption of continuity of possession is to be drawn in favour of a tenant unless by some cogent evidence or overt act it is proved that he abandoned the tenancy or was otherwise evicted in accordance with law. These observations in the case of Mansu v. Shadi Ram, 1996(3) RCR(Civil) 438 : 1996 PLJ 215 were approved in the judgment relied upon by the petitioner. However, I do not agree with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner as the Courts below on appreciation of evidence brought on record had given a positive finding that Kashmir Singh has ceased to be the tenant as possession was given to the petitioner by the previous owner as depicted in the sale-deed which was summoned by the petitioner and was brought on record, therefore, the presumption of continuity was rightly disbelieved by the Courts below.

5. It was next contended by Shri Sanjiv Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner that the record shows that even though two shops were purchased by way of joint sale-deed still Sarabjit Singh was shown to be owner of another shop which was not the subject-matter of the present dispute. It was also the case of the petitioner that no other evidence was brought on record to prove the tenancy between the parties and therefore, the finding on issue No. 1 being the outcome of misreading of evidence cannot be sustained.

The factum of non-payment of rent, however, was not disputed as the petitioner reiterated the stand that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and therefore, the rent as claimed was not payable as claimed by him. These contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner were controverted by S