Apandeep Singh vs Gurudwara Mastuana Sahib
2024 Latest Caselaw 7938 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Apandeep Singh vs Gurudwara Mastuana Sahib on 16 April, 2024

Author: Anil Kshetarpal

Bench: Anil Kshetarpal

                           Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051610




CR-3798-2019 (O&M)                                   2024:PHHC:051610
                                                           1

126    IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

                                         CR-3798-2019 (O&M)
                                         Date of decision :16.04.2024

Apandeep Singh                                       ...Petitioner

                                   Vs.

Gurdwara Mastuana Sahib                              ...Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

Present:     Ms. Puja Chopra, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. Ayush Gupta, Advocate
             for the respondent.

                           ****

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. (Oral)

1. In this revision petition, the tenant prays for setting aside

interlocutory order passed by the Rent Controller on 15.05.2019 while

assessing the provisional rent, which is payable by the tenant.

2. Learned counsel representing the petitioner contends that the

respondent previously filed Rent Petition No. 64 dated 02.07.2015, which

was dismissed on 08.08.2018. In the aforesaid judgment, it was held that

the respondent has appropriate remedy to file a civil suit for recovery of

possession. She submits that the second petition under the Rent Act is not

maintainable.

3. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondent

submits that the previous petition was not held maintainable as the

respondent herein had claimed that the petitioner herein was an

unauthorized occupant. He submits that petitioner herein, who was

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051610

CR-3798-2019 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:051610

respondent in the previous petition had claimed that he was a tenant. He

submits that the previous petition was filed on wrong advice and in this

petition, the respondent admits that the petitioner is a statuary tenant,

which fact is not disputed by the petitioner.

4. This Court has considered the submissions made by the

learned counsel representing the parties.

5. Relationship of landlord and the tenant between the parties is

not a dispute in these proceedings. In the previous petition, there was no

finding that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the

parties. The previous petition was dismissed only on account of the fact

that the petitioner had taken a wrong stand, however, that will not debar

the owner/landlord to file fresh petition.

6. Hence, no ground to interfere is made out.

7. Dismissed.

                                                     (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
16.04.2024                                                 JUDGE
neeraj       Whether speaking/reasoned :         Yes         No
             Whether Reportable :                Yes         No




                             2 of 2