A tenant under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 cannot be evicted from the demised premises except in accordance with or on the grounds specified in Section 13(1) of the Act. The civil court has no jurisdiction to pass a decree of dispossession against a tenant except in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

1. Though the controversy raised in this first appeal appears to have assumed some enormity on account of the status and the expertise the two litigating parties have acquired in fighting legal battles - they are practising advocates of this Court of considerable standing - yet the facts noticeable to resolve the same are brief and short. As a matter of fact the factual assertions made in the pleadings have brought the two combatants in a very close arena.

2. As per the allegations in the plaint, the plaintiff-respondent along with his wife Mrs. Maninder Kaur. purchased House No. 127. Sector 10-A, Chandigarh, from one Shri Balwant Singh son of Atma Singh for a consideration of Rupees 1,27,000 vide sale deed dated May 31, 1979. At that time the defendant-appellant was in occupation of a portion of the ground floor as a tenant under Balwant Singh vendor at a monthly rent of Rs. 310. Having thus steeped into the shoes of Balwant Singh. the respondent initiated proceedings under Sec.13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, the Act) in the Court of the Rent Controller. Chandigarh for the eviction of the appellant but the latter in his written statement dated Oct. 1, 1982, categorically pleaded before the Rent Controller that no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. Besides taking the further plea that the transaction between Balwant Singh and the respondent was a sham one, he asserted that the title to the property continued to vest in Balwant Singh. In the light of this stand of the appellant and believing that he had forfeited whatever right of tenancy he might be having in the property in question the respondent withdrew those proceedings by making a statement to that effect on Oct. 18, 1982. Then he filed the present suit on Oct. 19, 1982 with the assertion that the appellant having forfeited his right of tenancy on account of his plea in the rent proceedings, was a trespasser in the house in question and was thus liable to be dispossessed. This plea of the respondent has been accepted by the trial Court and the impugned decree for dispossession of the appellant was passed on May 19, 1983.

3. As against this, the appellant in his written statement pleaded that the plea of disclaimer or denial of relationship of landlord and tent between the parties was taken under stress and confusion as the respondent failed to disclose the details of the transaction between him and Balwant Singh his former landlord. Even in those proceedings Mrs. Maninder Kaur was not impleaded as a party. He claimed that as a matter of fact the relationship of landlord and tenant did exist between the parties. In support of this plea it was also stated that he had been paying rent to the respondent from June 8, 1979 onwards and as a matter of fact tendered Rupees 8,270 by way of rent, interest and costs before the Rent Controller on August 25, 1982, in order to avoid his eviction by the Rent Controller. This amount, according to the appellant, was accented by the counsel for the respondent without any Protest or pre-condition. It was also his case that the Plea of disclaimer taken by him before the Rent Controller was only an alternative Plea and merely on that account he did not lose his tenancy rights. On these Premises he asserted that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to pass a decree of dispossession against him. It was also pleaded that plaintiff-respondent was equally bound by his admission and assertion in the rent application that he was a tenant under the former as he was under Balwant Singh his predecessor-in-interest.

4. It is manifest from the above referred to contents of the pleadings that the primary question which needs to be settled is as to whether the relationship of landlord and tenant continued to exist between the Parties in spite of the above noted plea of disclaimer taken up by the appellant in the rent proceedings. In the light of these pleadings I hardly find it necessa