Judgment:
V.K. Jhanji, J.
1. This is tenant's revision petition directed against the orders of the authorities below whereby the tenant was ordered to be ejected
2. Landlord (respondent herein) sought ejectment of the petitioner from the tenanted premises under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. The ejectment was claimed on the ground of non-payment of rent w. e. f. February 8, 1982. in the written statement, tenant (petitioner herein) denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. The petitioner in his written statement stated that the site underneath the shop belonged to Hukam Chand and others from whom the respondent took the site and thereafter constructed the shop. Petitioner also alleged that on February 9, 1982, the respondent surrendered possession of the vacant site to Hukam Chand and others and sold the Malba on the site to him for Rs. 6,000/- which was to be paid in eight instalments of Rs. 750/- each. The instalments were stated to have been paid through cheques. Petitioner claimed to have taken the site on rent from Hukam Chand and others since February, 1980 at the rate of Rs. 140/- per month.
3. The Rent Controller on appreciation of the evidence on record found that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and since the tenant had not paid the rent to the landlord w. e. f. February, 1982, the petitioner was ordered to be ejected. On appeal, the Appellate Authority affirmed the findings of the Rent Controller These orders of the authorities below have been challenged in this revision petition.
4. Mr. H. L. Sarin, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that on record the respondent has failed to prove that the shop in dispute was let out to the petitioner. He further contended that the site underneath the shop did not belong to the respondent and, therefore, the respondent is not a 'landlord' within the meaning of the Act. His precise submission is that the shop was not let out by the respondent to the petitioner with the consent of Hukam Chand and others and, therefore, the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction under the Act to entertain the petition.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find no merit in the revision petition Petitioner in his written statement specifically denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. He never took up the plea that the shop in dispute was let out to him by the respondent. He in fact took up the plea that site underneath the shop in dispute was let out by Hukam Chand and others and Malba was purchased by him from the respondent. When he gave his statement in the Court as R.W.-2, he admitted that he took the shop in dispute on rent from respondent in the year 1977-78 and has been paying rent at the rate of Rs. 250/ per month. In view of the admission of the respondent, the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is clearly established on the record.
6. I also find no force in the second argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner as this stands concluded by a Full Bench judgment of this court in Hari Parshad Gupta . v. Jitender Kumar Kaushik, (1982) 84 P. L. R. 150 (F. B.), wherein it was held that when the land belongs to the Municipal Committee and the building thereon is constructed by the lessee, who lets out the same to the tenant, there are two distinct ownerships, i.e. Municipal Committee is owner of the land while the lessee is owner of the building. When an application for ejectment of tenant from such a building is filed by its owner, the same would be maintainable irrespective of the fact that the land underneath the building belongs to the Municipal Committee.
7. Faced with this situation, Mr. Sarin submitted that tenancy in favour of the respondent was surrendered and. thereafter the petitioner took the premises on rent from Hukam Chand and others. I find no merit in this argument too. Petitioner firstly has taken no plea that he was a tenant under the respondent and secondly surrendering of tenancy is also not proved though the petitioner in his written statement has stated that Malba of the shop was purchased by him from the respondent, but no such writing has been brought on record to show that the respondent ever sold Malba to the petitioner or there was such an agreement.
8. In view of the above discussion, I find no fault with the judgments of the trial Court and the Appellate Authority directing the ejectment of the1 petitioner undder Section 13 of the Act. Consequently, the revision petition, is dismissed with no order as to costs The petitioner is allowed three months' time to hand over the vacant possession of the shop in dispute to the landlord subject to the condition that he shall pay or deposit the entire arrears of rent, including the three months' rent in advance, within one month from today, failing which he shall be liable to be ejected forthwith.