JUDGMENT :

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral)

Challenge in the present revision petition is to the judgment dated 11.03.2024 vide which the Rent Controller has allowed the eviction petition filed by the respondents. Challenge is also to the order dated 14.08.2024 vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner against the said judgment has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the present petitioner and the respondents and that the petitioner had illegally occupied the premises and was in adverse possession of the same. It is submitted that in the said circumstances, since there was no relationship between the landlord and tenant, thus the Rent Authority under the Rent Act had no right to pass the order of eviction and thus, the impugned order and judgment deserve to be set aside and the eviction petition filed by the respondents deserves to be dismissed.

3. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and has perused the paper book and finds that the pleas raised by the petitioner are meritless and deserve to be dismissed for the reasons given hereinafter.

4. Respondents no.1 to 6 had filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for ejectment of the present petitioner from the shop in question on the averments that Shingara Singh, father of respondents no.1 and 2 and of deceased Kulwant Singh, was the owner of a piece of land comprised in khasra no.633, khewat / khatuni no.848/908 and khasra no.1900/634, 1902/634, khewat / khatauni no.561/597 situated at Taraf Saidan now known as Bihari Colony, Opp. Guru Arjan Dev Nagar, Tajpur Road, Ludhiana and on the said land, had raised construction in the shape of shops for the purpose of letting out and one of the shops, was let out to the present petitioner at a monthly rent of Rs.1500/-. It was further averred that the present petitioner had started paying monthly rent and thereafter, Shingara Singh had died on 24.04.2008 and after the death of said Shingara Singh, the entire property including the shop in dispute was inherited by the legal heirs of said Shingara Singh i.e., respondents no.1 to 6 and thus, they became owners/ landlords of the shop in dispute. It was averred that intimation regarding death of Shingara Singh was given to the present petitioner, who attorned in favour of the present respondents and started making payment of rent to them and thus, there was relationship of landlord and tenant. The eviction petition was filed on the ground that the present petitioner had not been paying the arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.12.2011 at the rate of Rs.1500/- per month.

5. In the written statement, the plea taken by the present petitioner was that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant. The Rent Controller framed the following issues in the case:-

'(i) Whether the respondent is liable to be evicted from the property in dispute on the ground of non-payment of rent? OPA

(ii) Whether present petition is not maintainable? OPR

(iii) Whether petitioner has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present petition? OPR

(iv) Whether petitioners are not the lawful owner of the property in dispute? OPR

(v-a) Whether petitioner has not come to the court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from the court if so its effect? OPR

(v-b) Whether petitioner has any relationship as landlord and tenant with the respondent? OPR

6. Issues no.(i) and (v-b) were the two important issues in the present case. The Rent Controller vide judgment dated 11.03.2024 allowed the eviction petition on the ground of non-payment of rent and directed the present petitioner to vacate the premises in two months time. While coming to the conclusion that there was relationship of landlord and tenant, the Rent Controller took into consideration the jamabandi for the year 2002-03, which was duly exhibited as Ex.P4, and as per which the pr