Dinesh Kohli vs Surinder Kumar And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 1597 P&H

  113 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                    CHANDIGARH

                                              CR-1509-2021 (O&M)
                                              Date of decision: 14.03.2022
Dinesh Kohli
                                               ....Petitioner

            Versus

Surinder Kumar (since deceased) through L.Rs and another
                                          ..Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

Present: Mr.H.S.Thiara, Advocate for the petitioner

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J (Oral)

The hearing of the case is being held through video

conferencing on account of restricted functioning of the Courts.

The petitioner is a tenant. He assails his order of eviction,

passed by the Rent Controller, which has been affirmed by the appellate

authority. The petitioner contested the eviction petition while claiming

to be tenant under Dharmshala Suthra Shah vide a rent note dated

21.08.2003 whereas the respondent-landlord claims that he is in

possession because respondent no.1 (Shiv Pal) sublet the premises

without his permission. Both the authorities have found that the

petitioner failed to prove the rent note dated 21.08.2003, Ex.RX. It has

further been found that apart from the measurement neither any

description of the property has been given in the alleged handwritten rent

note nor it has been proved. No one from Dharmshala Suthra Shah has

been examined to prove that the property in question, in fact, does not

belong to the landlord.

Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner at length

and with his able assistance perused the paper book. The petitioner has

1 of 2

placed on record, a site plan, copies of jamabandi and photograph. It

may be noted here that the petitioner has taken a positive stand that he is

a tenant under Dharmshala Suthra Shah and not a tenant under Surinder

Kumar. However, as already noticed, the petitioner failed to substantiate

the aforesaid plea. The layout plan which has been placed on record is

required to be proved in evidence. Similarly, from copies of the

jamabandi from 1904 till 1959-60 it is not proved that the shop in

question is part of the property owned by Suthra Shah. Similar is the

position with regard to photograph. There is also no application for

permission to lead additional evidence.

Learned counsel representing the petitioner, although, made

sincere attempts, however, failed to draw the attention of the Court to

any substantive error which goes to the root of the matter. While

hearing the revision petition, the jurisdiction to interfere is limited.

Reliance in this regard can be placed on Five Judge Bench judgment

passed in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited vs. Dilbahar

Singh' (2014) 9 SCC 78.

Hence, no ground to interfere is made out.

Dismissed.

All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also

disposed of.

14.03.2022                                       (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
rekha                                                 JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned :         Yes/No
Whether reportable :                Yes/No



                                  2 of 2