A tenant in possession cannot deny the landlord's title and is estopped from questioning it. The landlord's title is irrelevant in a suit for eviction of the tenant.

G.S. SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. The present revision petition, filed under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, the Act) is directed against the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below whereby eviction has been ordered from the premises in question on the ground of change of user. The Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur directed eviction on 09.10.2009, which was upheld in appeal by the Appellate Authority on 12.10.2012.

2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Bhoopa Sood, Secretary of the Trust, was not duly authorized and therefore, the proceedings, as such, were not validly instituted by him. Also that the title of the Trust, as such, was not clear and therefore, the authorities below were not justified in ordering eviction. It is his contention that even the original trust deed had not been produced by the said witness and it has come in evidence that the same had been lost. It was argued that the respondents had given their implied consent for raising the construction in the premises and therefore, they were estopped, as such, from seeking eviction on the said ground. The construction had been raised since 1978 and therefore, eviction was not justified on account of change of use.

3. A perusal of the record would go on to show that the eviction petition was filed on 20.09.2000 by the Trust through its Secretary namely, Bhoopa Sood, who was examined as PW-10, alleging that the Trust was a registered body and there was a resolution dated 31.07.2000 in favour of the Trust, which was duly attached. The boundaries of the property were mentioned and it was averred that Mohan Lal, father of petitioner No. 1 had been rented out the property @ Rs. 125/- per year for running a firewood stall (Tal). Thereafter, on account of his death, the tenancy rights were inherited by the present petitioner No. 1 and therefore, there existed the relationship of landlord-tenant. Eviction was sought on account of arrears of rent for the last 10 years; that construction had been raised of 3 shops, 2 rooms, a store and shed, without consent and therefore, material alteration had been done and the property had been materially impaired; the property had been rented out to respondent No. 2 and thus, had been sublet, who had started running the business of deluxe bakery in the shop and no consent had been taken and change of user was also alleged.

4. In the written statement filed, the relationship of landlord-tenant was denied and that the Trust was not the owner of the property. The existence of the trust deed was challenged and that the property had ever been made subject of the alleged Trust. The authorized person was a stranger, set up by some persons to grab the property and no payment had been made of any rent. Directions had been issued by the Court to produce the trust deed and in the same, there was no mention of the property and even the site-plan was challenged, that boundaries were wrong. However, the factum that the father of petitioner No. 1 had been running the business of fire-wood stall in the property in dispute, was admitted. The rent had been tendered in the Court under protest and it was denied that his father had taken any property on rent from the Trust. The right to recover the rent tendered, was put-forth. The construction had been raised in the shape of shops, rooms, store and shed by the father way back in 1978-79 and the building plan had also been got sanctioned from the Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur and construction had been raised. It was denied that there was any diminishing of the value and utility of the property rather it had increased. The father of petitioner No. 1 was in possession of the property in dispute since 1960 when the same was in the shape of deep pits and he had levelled the same by filling earth in the same and nobody had ever objected or raised a little finger to the acts of the father of petitioner No. 1. The Trust was, thus, estopped f