The admission made by a tenant regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant is considered as the best evidence, and the question of title is beyond the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller.

JUDGMENT

Manisha Batra, J. - The present revision petition has been filed by the revision petitioner Santa Singh (now dead and represented through legal representatives) challenging the order dated 23.09.2009 passed in Rent Appeal No.10 of 2008 titled as Santa Singh v Raj Mal whereby the learned Appellate Authority, Jalandhar while affirming the order dated 31.01.2008 passed by learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar, had allowed the petition filed by the landlord Raj Mal who too is now dead and represented by Legal representatives.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to hereinafter as per their original nomenclature before learned Rent Controller i.e. the revision-petitioner Santa Singh shall be referred to as respondent whereas the present respondents shall be referred to as legal representatives of petitioner Raj Mal.

3. The petitioner Raj Mal had filed petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (for short 'the Act') seeking ejectment of respondent Santa Singh from the shop mentioned in detail in the head note of the petition (hereinafter to be mentioned as 'demised shop') on the ground that the respondent was in arrears of rent since 01.11.1992 till 16.07.1996 i.e. till the date of filing of the petition payable @Rs.800/- per month. The respondent-Santa Singh had appeared and filed written statement denying the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was alleged by him that infact it was one Raj Kumar son of Tek Chand resident of Jalandhar who was owner-cum-landlord of the demised shop. The demised shop had been constructed by the respondent at his own expenses. On being allured by the petitioner that the latter and respondent would be in a position to denounce the relationship of landlord and tenant between owner Raj Kumar and himself, if the respondent made an erroneous admission qua his being tenant of Raj Mal and not of Raj Kumar and on assurance that he would be benefitted appropriately, the respondent had filed a civil suit titled as Santa Singh vs. Raj Mal wherein he suffered admission of his being a tenant under the petitioner Raj Mal. Subsequently, Raj Mal turned dishonest and refused to extend any benefit to him and then the respondent had withdrawn his suit. It was denied that he was in arrears of rent of the demised shop. It was asserted that the petitioner had no right to ask for payment of rent as he was neither owner nor landlord of the demised shop. Dismissal of the petition accordingly asked for.

4. The petitioner had filed replication controverting the pleas as taken in the written statement and re-asserting those of the petition. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues:-

'1. Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant is existing between the parties? OPA

2. Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.11.1992? OPP.

3. Relief."

5. The parties had adduced evidence in support of their respective assertions. The petitioner Raj Mal had examined himself as AW-1. In documentary evidence, he had tendered Mark A copy of a compromise shown to be effected between the respondent and himself on 02.11.1992 Ex.A2 to Ex.A-4 certified copies of plaint, written statement and replication respectively filed in Civil Suit No.107 of 1994 titled as Santa Singh v. Raj Mal, Ex.A-5 copy of application filed by the respondent for appointment of Local Commissioner, Mark B photocopy of report of Local Commissioner, Mark C photocopy of attendance sheet and Ex.A-6 and Ex.A-7 certified copy of judgment and decree sheet respectively passed in Civil Suit No.107 of 1994. On the other hand, the respondent-Santa Singh examined RW-2 Jaspal Singh, RW-3 Rajiv Kumar, RW-4 Manju Bala, Clerk, RW-5 Gopal Krishan, Patwari and RW-6 Satwinderjit Singh, Naib Tehsildar besides himself stepping into the witness box as RW-1. In documentary evidence, he produced Ex.R-2 certified copy of sale deed dated 03.10.2005 executed by power of