The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the landlord-tenant relationship and the applicability of the provisions of the Rent Act and the Waqf Act in deciding the case.

SURINDER GUPTA, J.

1. All the above revision petitions and regular second appeals have been taken up together as a common issue has been raised in these petitions and appeals as to “Whether there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between petitioner/appellant and respondents”.

2. Shakuntla Kadan wife of late Shri Ishwar Singh Kadan filed three separate ejectment petitions under Section 13 of Haryana Urban Control (of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (later referred to as 'the Rent Act') against different tenants (respondents in revision petitions and appeals) in different shops situated near Meera Said Chowk, G.T. Road, Karnal.

3. For the sake of convenience, I take the facts and evidence from the ejectment petition filed against tenant Rakam (since deceased, now represented by legal heirs in Rent Case No.3 of 2005 decided on 17.01.2006). As per case of landlord-revision petitioner (since deceased), the demised shop was let out to the respondent at monthly rent of Rs.700/- plus house tax. Respondent Rakam is running his tractor workshop business in the shop. The electricity connection in this shop was made available to the respondent by petitioner through meter bearing No. LM 30-1645. She sought ejectment of the respondent on the ground of non-payment of rent from 01.02.1993 onwards. In three separate civil suits filed by her, she claimed arrears of rent.

4. Respondents contested the petitions filed by landlord Shakuntla Kadan with the plea that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. They also denied their liability to pay any rent to the revision petitioner-landlord. They alleged themselves to be tenant under the Punjab Wakf Board and also challenged the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller to entertain and adjudicate upon the present petition(s). Pleading of the parties led to the framing of following issues:-

(1) Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant is existing between the petitioner and the respondent? OPP

(2) If Issue No.1 is proved, whether the petitioner is entitled for a decree for ejectment on the ground of non-payment of rent.

(3) Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR

(4) Whether the petitioner has got no cause of action to file the petition? OPR

(5) Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary party? OPR.

(6) Relief

5. After recording evidence, learned Rent Controller, Karnal recorded findings that the premises in question were let out to the respondents by Shakuntla Kadan and there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. While recording the above finding, the Rent Controller had a look on the evidence produced on record and observed as follows:-

“17. It is now settled law that Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to address dispute to title but he can certainly adjudicate the dispute about relationship. It is also settled law that it is not necessary that there should be documentary evidence to prove the tenancy. Tenancy can be proved by leading oral evidence as well.

18. The most important document relied by the respondent himself is allotment letter Ex.R.8. In this document itself it has been recited that the premises sought to be allotted to the respondent had already been in his possession. The testimony of RW1 Khurshid Ahmad is sufficient to identify that the disputed premises and property allotted to the respondent vide Ex.R.8 are identical. PW2 has proved on records copies of house tax assessment register for the year 1979-80 and so on which are Ex.PA to PD. I am agreed with the learned counsel for the respondent (that) the entries in the house tax assessment register are not conclusive proof of relationship between the parties as tenant-landlord because in this register only the name and address of occupier is mentioned. At the same time, the court cannot loose the site of the facts that in the column of ownership, the name of the petitioner has been mentioned whereas in the column of occupier name of res