The central legal point established is the requirement to establish the correct relationship of landlord and tenant for seeking ejectment.

J.V.Gupta, J.

1. This is landlords petition in whose favour eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller but has been set aside in appeal.

2. The landlord Mohan Singh filed an ejectment application in respect of the house in dispute, alleging that he had purchased the same from Udham Singh, vide sale deed dated 14th March, 1974. Udham Singh, the original owner, had inducted Udham Singh as his tenant, and after the sale in his favour he had become the landlord qua Udham Singh. The ejectment was sought on the ground that the tenant Udham Singh had neither paid nor tendered the rent with effect from 1st May, 1974; that he had sublet the premises to Kirpal Singh, respondent No. 2 (who died during the pendency of the ejectment application) before the Rent Controller and his legal representatives were brought on record as respondent Nos. 2 to 4 without consent of the landlord; that he bona fide required the demised premises for his own use and occupation as at present he was residing in a rented house; that the building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. In the written statements filed on behalf of Udham Singh and Kirpal Singh it was pleaded that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties; that the original owner never inducted Udham Singh as a tenant, and it was Surjit Kaur, wife of Kirpal Singh, who was the tenant on the demised premises under the original owner. The other allegations were also controverted. The learned Rent Controller found that since Mohan Singh had purchased the property from the original owner, he had become the landlord qua the tenants, and, thus, there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Ultimately, the ejectment order was passed on the ground that the landlord bona fide required the premises for his own use and occupation. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority did not go into the merits of the petition, but on the question of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, it found that merely because Mohan Singh had purchased the property from the earlier owner did not make him the landlord unless it was further proved that his vender had inducted Udham Singh as a tenant. On that short ground, the ejectment application was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord Mohan Singh has filed this petition.

3. In this Court, it has been admitted on behalf of the respondents that it was Surjit Kaur, widow of Kirpal Singh, who was inducted as a tenant by the original owner. Admittedly, Surjit Kaur was made a party to the petition before the Rent Controller but she was impleaded as the legal representative of her husband Kirpal Singh, and not as a tenant as such. In these circumstances, I am of the considered view that it would be in the fitness of things that the case is remanded to the Rent Controller for deciding the whole matter afresh after allowing the landlord to amend his petition alleging that Surjit Kaur was the tenant as admitted by the respondents; and that being so, the landlord is entitled to seek her ejectment on the grounds available to him.

4. The parties, through counsel, are directed to appear before the Rent Controller on 1st February, 1986, who will provide an opportunity to the landlord to amend his application, as directed, and then proceed-with the same in accordance with law. The records of the case be sent back forthwith. Order accordingly.