The denial of the landlord-tenant relationship does not entitle the tenant to an opportunity to tender rent, and the principles of estoppel may apply to a tenant who falsely denies the relationship.

M.M.Kumar, J.

1. This is a tenant-petition filed under Sub-section 5 of Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for brevity the Act), Challenging judgment dated 7.6.2001 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Sangrur, affirming the findings of facts recorded by the Rent Controller, San-grur. The Rent Controller concluded that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the tenant-petitioner did not pay arrears of rent with effect from 1.4.1993, therefore, he ordered the ejectment of the tenant-petitioner or any other person working in the shop on his behalf.

2. Brief facts of the case, which are necessary to decide the controversy raised are that the landlord-respondent filed an ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Act, alleging that Sukhdev Chand, deceased (now represented by his legal representatives for brevity to be referred as tenant-petitioner) had taken the shop on rent from him @ Rs. 90/- per year as per the rent note executed between the parties on 8.8.1968. Rent was paid till March 1993 and thereafter the tenant-petitioner stopped making the payment of rent. Arrears of rent was claimed with effect from 1.4.1993.

3. The tenant-petitioner stoutly denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and on that score refused to tender any rent in the Court. It was, however, admitted by the tenant-petitioner that he took the shop on rent for one year on 8.8.1968. He categorically asserted that he is not a tenant in the shop as he relinquished the possession of the shop since long, which is not in his possession. It is further alleged that the ejectment petition has been filed simply to harass him. The tenant-petitioner further alleged that after he relinquished the possession of the shop, it was given on rent by the landlord-respondent in 1971 to one Kesho Ram S/o Piara Ram, who is running his cloth business in the demised premises in the name and style of Mahavir Garments. It has further been alleged that initially the Kesho Ram used to pay rent to Kailash Chand, brother of landlord-respondent and later on he started paying rent to the landlord-respodnent himself. Therefore, the locus-standi of the landlord-respondent to file the ejectment petition has been challenged.

4. The landlord-respondent in his replication denied the fact that tenant-petitioner ever delivered the possession of the demised shop to him in the year 1971 and that the shop has been further rented to Kesho Ram. The landlord-respondent further asserted that the rent was being paid by the tenant-petitioner against receipt in his Bahi and no rent has ever been paid by Kesho Ram. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-

1) Whether respondent has delivered the possession of the shop in dispute to the applicant since long? OPP (onus objected to).

1A) Whether the petitioner rented out the shop in dispute to Kesho Ram after the respondent Sukhdev Chand relinquished the possession for the year 1971? OPR.

2) Whether applicant has no locus standi or cause of action to file this application? OPR (onus objected to).

3) Whether applicant is estopped from filing the present application by his acts and conducts? OPR (onus objected to).

4) Whether respondent is entitled to special costs? OPR.

5) Relief.

5. On issue No. 1, the Rent Controller concluded that there was no direct evidence led by the tenant-petitioner, which may lead to the conclusion that the tenant-petitioner ever delivered the possession to the landlord-respondent in the year 1971 and he inducted Kesho Ram who has been in possession of the demised premises as tenant under the landlord-respondent. Therefore, issue No. 1 was decided against the tenant-petitioner and in favour of the landlord-respondent. Similarly, the findings were recorded on issue No. 1-A that the demised shop was not let out by landlord-respondent to Kesho Ram as alleged yet tenant-petitioner himself continued in p