V.M. Jain, J.
1. This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 20.2.1988 passed by the Appellate Authority, whereby the appeal filed by the landlord was accepted, the order passed by the learned Rent Controller was set aside and ejectment order was passed against the tenant.
2. The facts in brief are that Dharambir, landlord, filed petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 against Madan Lal - tenant, seeking his ejectment from the house in question on account of non-payment of rent, alleging therein that the rate of rent was Rs.67.50p per month including rent and tax and that the tenant had not paid the arrears of rent since 1.9.1979 till the filing of the ejectment petition. In the written statement filed by Madan Lal-tenant, the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was denied. It was alleged that in fact, he (Madan Lal) was inducted as a tenant by Harbhagwan (father of Dharambir-landlord) in the demised premises on a rent of Rs.30/- per month. It was alleged that he (Madan Lal) had paid the rent upto 31.8.1982 to the said Harbhagwan. In the replication, Dharambir-Landlord, controverted the allegation of Madan Lal-tenant and reiterated the stand taken by him in the ejectment petition.
3. On the pleading of the parties, the following issues were framed:
1. Whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties? OPA
2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether respondent is liable to be ejected from the premises in dispute on the grounds as alleged? OPA,
3. Relief.
4. After hearing both sides, the learned Rent Controller, dismissed the ejectment petition holding that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, in as much as Madan Lal was inducted as a tenant by Harbhagwan, father of Dharambir. It was further held that since there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the present petition for ejectment filed by Dharambir was not maintainable on account of non-payment of rent. Resultantly, the ejectment petition was dismissed. However, the appeal filed by Dharambir was accepted by the Appellate Authority. The order passed by the learned Rent Controller was set aside and it was held that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that Madan Lal-tenant was liable to be ejected from the house in question on account of non-payment of rent. Aggrieved against the same Madan Lal-tenant filed the present revision petition in this court.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-tenant submitted before me that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and as such the ejectment petition filed by Dharambir was liable to be dismissed. Reliance has been placed on the law laid down by this Court, in (1996-1)112 P.L.R. 161 Sant Lal v. Prem Chandel (Smt.). On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for Dharambir-respondent submitted before me that Dharambir is the owner of the house in question and as such he is entitled to seek the ejectment of the tenant from the demised premises on account of non-payment of rent. Reliance has been placed on the law laid down by this court in the cases reported as 1982(2) Rent Control Reporter 7 Miss Jit Kaur (Jagjit Kaur) v. Mool Chand (Delhi) and (1980)82 P.L.R. 363 Smt. Ram Piari v. Delhi Fruit Company and Ors.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, in myopinion, it stands fully proved on the record that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between Dharambir and Madan Lal and that Dharambir is entitled to seek the ejectment of Madan Lal tenant from the house in question on account of non-payment of rent.
7. Except the oral evidence led by Madan Lal-tenant, there is no material on the record to show that he was inducted as a tenant by Harbhagwan, father of Dharambir, it is not disputed before me by the learned counsel appearing for Madan Lal-tenant-petitioner that Dharambir is the owner of the house in question. Exhibit AW-3/1 is the original Sale deed dated 27.12.1965, which is available on the record of the Rent Controller. It shows that the previous owners, Neki Ram-Kishori-Jangli s/o Mangli had sold the property in question to Dharambir s/o Harbhagwan, as per the Sale Deed dated 27.12.1965. Thus, admittedly, Dharambir is the owner of the house in question. The categorical case of Dharambir is that the house in question was let out by him to Madan Lal-tenant. On the other hand, the case of Madan Lal-tenant is that the house in question was let out to him by Harbhagwan, father of Dharambir. As referred to above, the learned Appellate Authority, on the basis of evidence led by the parties, had held that the property in question was not let out to Madan Lal-tenant by Harbhagwan. On the other hand, it was found that in fact, the property was let out by Dharambir. This finding given by the Appellate Authority is based on evidence led by the parties and does not call for any interference by this court in the exercise of revisional powers. Even otherwise, if for the sake of arguments it is accepted that Harbhagwan, father of Dharambir, had given property in question on rent to Madan Lal, on behalf of his son, Dharambir, it could not be said that mere was no relationship of landlord and tenant between, Dharambir and Madan Lal. This is especially so, when nothing has come on the record to show that Madan Lal or that Harbhagwan was landlord qua Madan Lal. The authority Sant Lal v. Prem Chandel (Smt.), (1996-1)112 P.L.R. 161 (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant, in my opinion, would have no application to the facts of the present case. In the reported case, it was found as a fact that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. This finding was given on the basis of the evidence led by the parties. In Smt. Ram Piari v. Delhi Fruit Company and Ors. (1980)82 PLR 363 (supra), it was held by this Court that where an owner of a building had let out the same on rent to a tenant through his son and on the failure of the tenant to pay the arrears of rent, the owner had filed ejectment application seeking ejectment of the tenant on account of non-payment of rent and the tenant had not paid the arrears of rent on the first date of hearing on the ground that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the owner of the building certainly falls within the definition of the landlord and that the failure of the tenant to pay the arrears of rent on the first date of hearing would make him liable for ejectment from the rented building. Similar view was taken by this Court in 1987(1) R.C.R. 218 Radha Bopa Rai v. Atma Ram Kundra, Reliance in this regard may also be placed on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of K.D. Dewan v. Harbhajan S. Parihar, (2002-2)131 P.L.R. 682 (S.C.).
8. In view my detailed discussion above, I hold that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Hence, the finding of learned appellate authority in this regard is affirmed.
9. It has then been submitted before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the rate of rent is Rs.30/- per month and not Rs.60/- per month and as such the tenant is not liable to be ejected from the house in question on account of non-payment of rent. However, I find no force in this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant. In the present case, the tenant has miserably failed to prove the payment of rent either to Dharambir or to his father. Harbhagwan. The onus to prove the payment of rent is on the tenant. In the ejectment petition, the landlord had claimed the ejectment of the tenant from the house in question on account of non-payment of the rent, allegingtherein that the tenant had not paid the rent with effect from 1.9.1979. Admittedly, no rent was tendered by the tenant in the Court within the stipulated period towards arrears of rent. Since the tenant had failed to prove the payment of arrears of rent and had also failed to pay the rent in the Court within the stipulated period, the Appellate Authority had ordered the ejectment of the tenant from the house in question on account of nonpayment of rent. In my opinion, no fault could be found in this finding of the learned Appellate Authority. Accordingly, I uphold the finding of the Appellate Authority and hold that the tenant is liable to be ejected from the house in question on account of non payment of rent.
10. No other point has been urged before me in this petition.
11. For the reasons recorded above, finding no merit in this revision petition, the same is hereby dismissed.