V.K. Jhanji, J.@mdashThis is landlord''s revision petition directed against the order of the appellate Authority whereby order of ejectment passed
by the Rent Controller was reversed and in consequence thereof, ejectment petition filed by the landlord was dismissed.
2. In brief, the facts are that Ajanta Co-Educational High School, Amritsar, through Smt. Swaran Kapur, (hereinafter referred to as ''the school'')
vide sale-dead dated 9.1.1979, registered on 14.2.1979, purchased double storeyed building which was in occupation of two tenants, namely
Hari Chand who was a tenant on the ground floor at the rate of Rs. 5/- per month and Karam Chand (respondent herein) who was a tenant at the
rate of Rs. 91- per month. The school through Swaran Kapur, its Manager, filed two ejectment petitions for ejectment of both the tenants in the
year 1983. Ejectment was sought on the ground of non-payment of rent as well as on the ground of personal necessity. The tenants denied the
relationship of landlord and tenant. The other grounds of ejectment were also denied. The arrears of rent were also not tendered on the first date of
hearing. The Rent Controller vide order dated 29.7.1987 allowed both the ejectment petitions and directed the tenants to hand over the vacant
possession of the building to the school. Hari Chand, tenant, filed an appeal against this order, which was dismissed by the appellate Authority.
However, the appeal filed by Karam Chand, tenant, was allowed by the appellate Authority. The order of the appellate Authority being impugned
by the school in the present revision petition. The appeal was allowed by the appellate Authority on the ground that the sale-deed in favour of the
school has not been proved on the record and also that Swaran Kapur has not been proved to be the Manager of the School.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, I am of the view that the revision petition deserves to succeed. The school in its
ejectment petition had specifically averred that the school had purchased the property vide sale-deed which was registered on 14.2.1979 and by
operation of law, respondent has become tenant under the school. The averment with regard to purchase was not specifically denied by the
respondent. In absence of specific denial, it was not necessary for the school to prove the sale-deed in question. However, the school as an
abundant caution examined the deed-writer, Harbhajan Lal, who had scribed the sale-deed. He in his statement stated that he scribed the sale-
deed which was read over to the attesting witnesses. During the course of his statement, sale-deed was got exhibited and no objection whatsoever
was raised at that stage. An objection was raised when Swaran Kapur was examined as witness and that objection was only with regard to mode
of proof of the document, and that too when it was to the knowledge of the respondent that the document had already been exhibited at the time
when the deed-writer made his statement. In my view, objection with regard to mode of proof of document was not open to the respondent after
the document had been, exhibited. Counsel for the respondent can draw no assistance from the judgments in. the The Collector, Raigarh Vs.
Harisingh Thakur and Another, and P.G.D. Ombrain and Ors. etc. v. Collector of Kamrup Gauhati AIR 1980 Gau 55 cited by him as the same
are clearly distinguishable on the facts of the present case. The other objection with regard to Swaran Kapur being not proved to be the Manager
of the school is also not sustainable because in the title of the petition, Swaran Kapur has been described as the Manager. In the written statement,
the only objection was that the petition had not been filed by a duly authorised person. It was no-where stated that Swaran Kapur is not the
Manager. The contents of the sale-deed prove that the property in dispute was purchased by Swaran Kapur as Manager of the school.
Respondent in his own statement has also not stated that Swaran Kapur is not the Manager of the school, and for that matter, the finding of the
appellate Authority on this score is set aside.
4. For the reasons recorded above, the revision petition is allowed and order of the appellate Authority is set aside and that of the Rent Controller
is restored with no order as to costs. Tenant is allowed two months'' time to vacate the premises provided he pays/deposits the entire arrears of
rent within one month from today.
