The importance of providing sufficient evidence to establish a landlord-tenant relationship and claims of non-payment of rent.

Arun Palli, J.

Vide order dated 04.10.2000, rendered by the Rent Controller, Jalandhar, the eviction petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Appeal preferred against the said order failed and was accordingly dismissed vide judgment dated 05.03.2003. This is how, the petitioner-landlord is before this court.

2. In an ejectment petition filed by the petitioner, he sought eviction of Bhag Mal son of Jawala Ram i.e. predecessor-in-interest of the respondent, from the demised premises i.e. ES 425, shown in red colour in the site plan, appended with the petition. It was averred that the said property was purchased by Hardial Singh son of Bela Singh in an open auction from the Rehabilitation Department and the petitioner purchased the said house from Hardial Singh vide a registered sale deed. Bhag Mal was alleged to have been inducted as a tenant in the demised premises on monthly rent of Rs. 400/- about twenty years ago. Subsequently, the rent was raised to Rs. 600/- per month. About five years prior to the filing of the eviction petition, at the instance of the respondent, the petitioner renovated the house and also provided an additional room. Accordingly, the rent was enhanced to Rs. 800/- per month. The rent was regularly paid by the respondent and consequently, the petitioner had issued receipts to the respondent. However, w.e.f. 01.01.1990, respondent failed to pay the rent and was thus in arrears @ Rs. 800/- per month. Thus, eviction was sought on account of non-payment of rent.

3. In defence, it was pleaded, inter alia, that neither the petitioner was the landlord nor even the owner of the demised premises. Rather, respondent claimed himself to be the owner in possession of the house in question. It was maintained that the said property was purchased by Swaran Singh Bajwa in an open auction and was subsequently sold to the respondent pursuant to an agreement dated 14.11.1990. And the respondent was put in possession. It was denied that the respondent ever paid rent to the petitioner, as there was never any relationship of landlord and a tenant between the parties.

4. On a consideration of the matter in issue and the evidence on record, learned Rent Controller arrived at a conclusion that a copy of the assessment register for the year 1994-95 (Ex.PE), being relied upon by the petitioner, was hardly of any consequence as the same was prepared during the pendency of the proceedings. Further, the assessment register did not reflect that the respondent was indeed a tenant of the petitioner qua the demised premises. Except the statements of the attorney of the petitioner Dass Ram (AW1) and Ved Parkash (AW3), nothing was brought on record to suggest that the respondent was a tenant under the petitioner. On the contrary, Ex.R64 showed that the respondent was put in possession of the demised premises pursuant to the said document. Though, petitioner claimed to have issued rent receipts to the respondent for all these years, but no counterfoil was brought on record to substantiate the said plea. That being so, it was concluded that the petitioner had failed to prove the relationship of the landlord and a tenant between the parties. And, thus, there was no occasion for the respondent to pay any rent. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

5. Being aggrieved against the order dated 04.10.2000, passed by the Rent Controller, petitioner preferred an appeal. Learned appellate authority reviewed the matter in issue, evidence on record, and on an analysis thereof, found itself in concurrence with the conclusion drawn by the Rent Controller. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner simply seeks to reiterate the submissions that were advanced before the courts below and rejected after a due and comprehensive consideration. All what he has urged is that although respondent claimed himself to be the owner in possession of the