Ownership of premises does not automatically establish the relationship of landlord and tenant without evidence of tenancy.

J.V.Gupta, J.

1. This is landlords revision petition whose application for ejectment of the tenant was allowed by the Rent Controller but dismissed in appeal.

2. Mohinder Singh, landlord, sought the ejectment of the respondent Ram Nath from a part of House No. 1609/1, situated in Mohalla Purara Gadda Khanna, near Arya Samaj, Patiala, inter alia on the grounds that he had failed to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 140/- per month from August 1, 1972 onwards; had not made payment of the house tax leviable at the rate of 12 per cent. On the amount of rent since the year 1972 and that the premises, in question, were required by him for his own use and occupation. The petition was contested by the respondent mainly on the ground that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The learned Rent Controller found that there did exist the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Since no rent was paid even in accordance with the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 , (hereinafter called `the Act), the order of eviction was passed against him. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, as alleged. Consequently, the ejectment application was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the same the landlord has filed this revision petition in this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the petitioner being owner of the premises, in dispute, was entitled to recover the rent and was thus, to be deemed to be landlord qua the respondent who was admittedly, occupying the premises. Thus, argued the learned counsel, the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was duly proved in the present case, and that the finding of the Rent Controller to this effect, has been reversed arbitrarily by the Appellate Authority.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in this revision petition.

5. Admittedly, there was no document evidencing the tenancy of the premises, in question, in favour of the respondent by the petitioner. The mere fact that the petitioner is the owner of the premises does not prove that the respondent was inducted as a tenant by him and, thus, he had become the landlord qua him. In that situation, the petitioner will be entitled to dispossession the respondent on the basis of his title in accordance with law, but not as a landlord on the basis of his ownership of the premises alone, under the Act.

6. Under the circumstances, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the findings of the Appellate Authority as to be interfered within the revisional jurisdiction.

7. Consequently, this revision petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.