The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of estoppel, where the tenant's acceptance of the landlord's ownership through various actions and documents led to the dismissal of the tenant's attempt to dispute ownership as an abuse of the process of law.

JUDGMENT

Tribhuvan Dahiya, J. - This is petitioner/tenant's revision petition under Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rent Act') for setting aside the order of eviction passed by Rent Controller dated 16.02.2019 as well as the order of the Appellate Authority dismissing the tenant's appeal vide order dated 21.12.2021.

2. The respondent No.1/landlord filed ejectment petition with respect to the premises in question, i.e., shop on ground floor of property No.80, 486/1-6 Katra Jaimal Singh Amritsar, as detailed in the petition. The shop was let out to the tenants by the erstwhile landladies Munisha wife of Anil Kumar Khurana and Kamal wife of Kishore Chand Khurana at the rate of Rs.500/- per month. The tenancy was oral, accompanied by delivery of possession. To reduce the terms thereof in writing, a rent note dated 10.03.2000 was executed by the tenant in favour of the landladies. The date of commencement of tenancy was 01.03.2000 for a period of eleven months. Later on, one of the landladies, Kamal wife of Kishore Chand Khurana, expired and her share in the property devolved upon her grandson Kavish Khurana son of Anil Khurana, based upon her Will. Munisha and Kavish, landlords transferred their right, title and interest in the suit property in favour of the present landlord/respondent No.1 on 28.03.2007 vide registered sale deed. Accordingly, he became owner/landlord of the property with effect from that date. To facilitate recovery of rent of the demised premises, respondent No.1 authorized Munisha Khurana and Kavish Khurana to recover rent of the property, and the same was being recovered by them up to 31.03.2010. The ejectment was sought on account of nonpayment of rent and bona fide need of the landlord.

3. The Rent Controller, upon consideration of the evidence produced on record, ordered ejectment of the tenant from the demised property. The appeal filed against the ejectment order was dismissed by the Appellate Authority.

4. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and record/evidence placed on the case filed has been perused.

5. Learned counsel for the tenant has essentially raised two arguments against the judgments of the Courts below. Firstly, it has been contended that the title of the landlord with respect to the demised premises is in dispute. He cannot claim ownership of the property/demised premises on the basis of sale deed dated 28.03.2007 (Annexure P-9) since it pertains only to purchase of malba and not the property in question. The second argument raised by learned counsel is, despite specific applications having been moved before the Courts below for framing of issues on this aspect of defective title, the same have not been dealt with/decided. In this regard, he has referred to Annexures P-16, application dated 16.08.2019 under Order XLI Rule 25 CPC and Annexure P-18, application dated 29.07.2021 under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC filed by the tenant before the Appellate Authority. He contends, since both the applications have not been dealt with by the Appellate Authority and no order thereupon has been passed, the judgment in appeal deserves to be set aside and the matter remanded to the Appellate Authority for fresh adjudication thereupon as well as the appeal.

6. Per contra, learned senior counsel for the respondent, by referring to the documents placed on record on behalf of the landlord, states that the issues raised herein by the learned counsel for the tenant already stand decided by the Courts below. He further submits that the sale deed in question pertains to the entire property and not to any malba. If read in totality the deed undisputedly points to sale of the entire property. It has further been submitted that the issues sought to be raised by the tenant now before this Court regarding defective ownership of the landlord on the basi