Rulda Singh vs Abhay Partap Singh
2022 Latest Caselaw 14267 P&H

CR-5131-2022                                     -1-

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                    CHANDIGARH

                                 CR-5131-2022
                                 Date of decision:-14.11.2022

Rulda Singh

                                                                 ...Petitioner
                    Versus

Abhay Partap Singh


                                                                ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S.MADAAN

Present:      Mr.Chandeep Singh, Advocate
              for the petitioner.

                   ****

H.S. MADAAN, J.(ORAL)

1. Petitioner- landlord Abhay Partap Singh through his attorney

Sh.Roshan Lal had filed an ejectment petition against his tenant Rulda

Singh - respondent qua shop/premises situated at Ward No.8, Behlolpur

Road, Samrala, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana, on the ground of the

respondent/tenant being in arrears of rent from 1.11.2013 onwards @

Rs.1,700/- per month; the respondent having not paid the house tax and

property tax till date and that the petitioner and his family have their own

car bearing No.PB-43-7039 and they have no place for parking the same

and the petitioner requires the shop in question for that purpose.

2. The said rent petition bearing CIS No.RA/06/2016 was

instituted on 9.5.2016 before the Rent Controller, Samrala and notice

thereof was given to respondent-tenant, who put in appearance and

contested the rent petition. Following issues were framed to adjudicate the

controversy between the parties:

1 of 4

1. Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent, house tax & property

tax? OPA

2. Whether the petitioner requires the demised premises for his

personal necessity? OPA

3. If so, whether the respondent is liable to be ejected from the

demised premises? OPA

4. Whether the tender made by the respondent is short and

invalid?OPA

5. Whether the present petition is not maintainable? OPR

6. Whether the petitioner has no cause of action to file the present

petition? OPR

7. Relief.

3. The parties were afforded adequate opportunities to lead

evidence in support of their respective claims. Learned Rent Controller,

Samrala vide his detailed judgment dated 7.2.2020 accepted the rent

petition and directed ejectment of respondent - tenant from demised

premises within two months from the date of passing of the order, failing

which, the petitioner-landlord could obtain possession by adopting due

course of law. The respondent was also found liable to pay an amount of

Rs.1,10,800/- i.e. rent @ Rs.1,700/- per month from 1.11.2013 to the

petitioner as per the following details:

* Arrears: rate of rent @ Rs.1300/- per month w.e.f. 01.11.2013 to

31.08.2017 (46 months) = Rs.59,800/- (As rent at the rate of

Rs.400/- had already been paid under protest)

2 of 4

* Arrears: rate of rent @ Rs.1700/- per month w.e.f. 01.09.2017 to

28.02.2020 (30 months) = Rs.51,000/-

4. The Rent Controller, Samrana had decided issues No.1 and 2

in favour of petitioner-landlord against respondent-tenant holding that the

latter was in arrears of rent/house tax and property tax and the former,

who is residing abroad requires the demised premises for his personal

necessity.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment passed by Rent

Controller, Samrala, the respondent-tenant had preferred an appeal before

the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, which after contest was decided by

Appellate Authority, Ludhiana vide order dated 21.10.2022 in which the

judgment passed by Rent Controller, Samrala was affirmed and the appeal

filed by the appellant/tenant was dismissed.

6. Now the said tenant has approached this Court by way of

filing the present revision.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist besides going

through the record.

8. The judgment/order passed by the Rent Controller, Samrala

and Appellate Authority, Ludhiana are detailed and well reasoned. Those

do not come out to be suffering from any illegality or infirmity much less

apparent on their face. The judgment/order are certainly not perverse or

passed in an arbitrary manner. The revisional jurisdiction of this Court is

quite limited and considering the facts and circumstances of the case,

there is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment/order by way

3 of 4

of exercising the revisional jurisdiction. No substantial question of law or

fact arises in this case.

9. Thus, finding no merit in the civil revision petition, the same

stands dismissed.

14.11.2022                                          (H.S.MADAAN)
Brij                                                    JUDGE

Whether reasoned/speaking :              Yes/No

Whether reportable               :       Yes/No




                                     4 of 4