Petitioners failed to establish the landlord-tenant relationship necessary for eviction under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, as they could not prove ownership or authorization to collect rent.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, J. (Oral)

Present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners/landlords against the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below i.e. Court of Ld. Rent Controller and thereafter, by Appellate Authority under the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.

2. Ejectment petition was filed by the petitioners i.e. 1. Dr. Ambrish Singal s/o late Sh. Vinod Singal and 2. Smt. Indira Singal, widow of Sh. Vinod Singal for ejectment of the respondent (tenant) alleging that the shop in question is under the ownership of the petitioners as they have inherited the same after the death of Vinod Singal (father of petitioner No.1 and husband of petitioner No.2).

3. It has been averred that respondent took the shop measuring 7 ft. x 17 ft. on rental basis @ Rs.850/- per month from Vinod Singal. The grounds taken for the purpose of eviction of the demised premises are that:-

a) tenant has not paid the rent of the shop despite many requests, thus he is a bad tenant;

b) shop in question is required by the petitioners for their personal necessity because petitioners want to settle at Sangrur and petitioner No.1 wants to practice as a medical practitioner at Sangrur by opening ultra modern nursing home in the shop in question, and

c) petitioners have no other shop at Sangrur in their occupation in any other capacity, whatsoever, etc.

4. In the written statement filed by the respondent/tenant, preliminary objection was taken that the petitioners are not the owners of the shop in question as Vinod Singal (since deceased) was never owner of the same. Thus, no question of inheriting the shop in question by the petitioners from Vinod Singal arises.

It has also been pleaded that petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and the petitioners have filed the petition only to grab the property.

Further pleaded that Hari Lal was the owner of three shops and all the three shops were inherited by his three sons namely Dr. Vinod, Dr. Subodh and Dr. Ashok in a family settlement. Shop in question belongs to Dr. Ashok, who had already sold the same to Smt. Anita, wife of respondent/tenant on 18.05.2012 by executing a sale deed.

It is further pleaded that the shop in dispute was taken by him on rental basis on 24.07.1989 from Dr. Ashok Kumar. However, Dr. Vinod had affixed his signature on behalf of the original owner (his brother). On merits, all other contentions have been denied in the written statement and thus, prayed for dismissal of the rent petition.

5. After filing of the replication by the petitioners, learned Rent Controller vide its order dated 11.12.2014, framed the following issues:-

"1. Whether there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties? OPA

2. Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent and as such, he is liable to be evicted? OPA

3. Whether the petitioners being the landlord requires the demised premises for his own use and occupation and as such the respondent is liable to be evicted? OPA

4. Whether the present eviction petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR

5. Relief."

6. Regarding the first issue, i.e. to examine the disputed relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, learned Rent Controller found that there is nothing available on record to conclude that property in question was ever owned by Vinod Singal. Although, there is no dispute regarding the admission made by the respondent/tenant that Hari Lal Singal was having ownership of three shops. Even, no document has been produced showing the ownership of Dr. Hari Lal o