Gian Sarup@Gian Saroop vs Shanti Devi Now Deceased Th Her Lrs And ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 10817 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Gian Sarup@Gian Saroop vs Shanti Devi Now Deceased Th Her Lrs And ... on 4 July, 2024

                                Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082930




129
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                  AT CHANDIGARH

                                Civil Revision No. 3687 of 2024 (O&M)
                                Date of Decision: 04.07.2024

Gian Sarup @ Gian Saroop
                                                               .......... Petitioner
                                        Versus

Shanti Devi (since deceased) through her legal heirs
and another
                                                           .......... Respondents

CORAM:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

Present:      Mr. Prateek Sodhi, Advocate, for the petitioner-tenant.
                              ****
HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

The petitioner, by way of present petition, seeks setting aside

of an order dated 30.05.2024 passed by the learned Appellate Authority,

Amritsar (for short "Appellate Authority"), whereby an application moved

on behalf of petitioner-tenant seeking removal of an affidavit of evidence

filed on behalf of respondent(s)-landlord in the first appeal, stands declined.

[2] In the present case, the respondent-landlord filed an eviction

petition against the petitioner, on the ground of bona fide requirement, which

came to be allowed vide order dated 21.08.2015 passed by the Rent

Controller, Amritsar. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner-tenant filed Rent

Appeal No. 56 of 2017, titled "Gian Sarup Versus Smt. Shanti Devi and

another"; during its pendency, the petitioner moved an application seeking

amendment of written statement, inter alia, disputing the relationship of the

landlord and tenant between the parties and the same was allowed vide order

dated 08.07.2016 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Appellate Authority. The

parties were thereafter afforded opportunity to lead evidence and finally,

1 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082930

vide decision dated 24.01.2018 (Annexure P-7), the Appellate Authority

allowed the appeal, while dismissing the ejectment petition filed on behalf of

respondents-landlord.

[3] Aggrieved of the judgment dated 24.01.2018 (P-7) passed by

the Appellate Authority, the respondents-landlord approached this Court by

filing Civil Revision No. 5849 of 2018, titled "Smt. Shanti Devi and

another Versus Gian Sarup", which came to be decided vide judgment

dated 01.08.2023 (Annexure P-9). The operative paras-10 to 12 thereof are

reproduced hereunder:-

"10. Besides it, though the identity of tenanted premises which in fact forms part of being a portion of building comprising No. 1515/XII-10 was disputed by the respondent-tenant at the stage of first appeal, the petitioners were required to establish their identity beyond reasonable doubt that time only, yet, considering fact that the substantial rights of the parties are involved and an application seeking permission to lead additional evidence has been filed along with the present revision petition towards the proof of identity of the tenanted premises, the same needs to be allowed as the documents now sought to be produced are going to help the Court to decide the present controversy in a complete and effective manner while ascertaining the issue of identity of the property more conclusively. The petitioners would suffer serious prejudice in case their application is not allowed and they are not permitted to establish the identity of the demised premises in a decisive and definite manner, the same being the ground floor of the property purchased by the petitioners.

11. Resultantly, the present revision petition is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 24.01.2018 passed by the first appellate Court is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded so as to permit the petitioners to lead additional evidence as regards the identity of the tenanted premises and decide the matter afresh on merits as well. The

2 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082930

respondent-tenant shall also be granted opportunity to rebut the evidence led by the petitioners.

12. Considering the fact that the eviction petition was filed in the year 2010, the appellate Authority is requested to decide the same within a period of one year. The parties are directed to appear before the Appellate Authority on 28.08.2023. "

[4] Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the matter was remanded to

the Appellate Authority, while granting liberty to the parties to lead their

respective evidence as regards the identity of demised premises. In

pursuance thereof, the respondents-landlord filed an affidavit of evidence

attested on 12.02.2024 (Annexure P-10) in the name of Dharminder S/o late

Sh. Des Raj.

[5] Soon thereafter, the petitioner-tenant moved an application for

issuance of directions for deleting the said affidavit of Dharminder-AW from

record, while placing reliance upon the order dated 01.08.2023 (P-9) passed

by this Court and submitted that the only permission granted by this Court in

its order, was to allow the respondent-landlord to lead evidence in terms of

his application for additional evidence, whereby he intended to produce on

record four sale deeds (Annexures A-7 to A-11) as mentioned therein. It was

submitted that no other evidence at all was permitted to be led by the

respondents-landlord and thus, the aforesaid affidavit of Dharminder was

required to be removed / deleted from the records.

[6] The aforesaid application was contested by the respondents-

landlord, however, the same came to be dismissed by Appellate Authority

vide its order dated 30.05.2024.

[7] Impugning the aforesaid order dated 30.05.2024, learned

counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that the order passed by this

3 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082930

Court never permitted the respondents-landlord to lead any evidence, except

the additional evidence already prayed for by them in their previous

application filed before the first appeal and as such, no other evidence

beyond that could be led on their behalf before the First Appellate Court. He

also submits that the respondents-landord have now sought to produce on

record a site plan, whereas one site plan filed on their behalf was already part

of the record as Ex. P-30 and thus, prayed that respondent-landlord cannot

be permitted to travel beyond the order dated 01.08.2023, passed by this

Court.

[8] After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and having gone

through the paper-book / relevant records, I am unable to find substance in

the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner.

[9] A perusal of the order passed by this Court on 01.08.2023 (P-9)

clearly reflects that while setting aside the decision dated 24.01.2018 (P-7)

passed by the Appellate Authority, the matter was remanded in toto, while

granting permission to the parties to lead additional evidence about the

identity of the tenanted premises with no restrictions thereupon or limiting it

to the extent of their previous application filed before the Appellate

Authority only. In such circumstances, the respondents-landlord were well

within their right to lead any relevant evidence on the issue of identity of the

tenanted premises, de hors the documents relied upon them in their previous

application.

[9.1] As regards the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner that a site

plan already forms part of the records as Ex. P-30 and now it was

impermissible on behalf of the respondents-landlord to prove another site

plan, in the humble opinion of this Court, no merit can be found with the

4 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082930

said argument of petitioner as the respondent-landlord once having been

granted permission to lead additional evidence, they are at liberty to produce

and prove any such evidence, relating to merits of the controversy involved

in the first appeal, which, undoubtedly, shall be subject to final scrutiny,

appreciation and adjudication by the Appellate Authority at the final

determination of lis between the parties.

[10] In view of the above, finding no merit in the present revision

petition, the same is hereby dismissed.

[11] It may be noticed here that previously, while deciding Civil

Revision No. 5849 of 2018 (supra), specific direction was issued by this

Court to the Appellate Authority so as to adjudicate upon the appeal within a

period of one year from the date of passing of the previous order, i.e.

01.08.2023 (P-9), however, so far the evidence of respondents-landlord has

not even started and in such circumstances, this Court is compelled to

request the Appellate Authority to adjudicate upon the appeal as soon as

possible at the earliest, preferably within a period of three months from

today.

[12] Nothing expressed hereinabove shall be construed as an

expression on the merits of appeal.

[13] Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand

disposed off.

July 04, 2024                                    ( HARKESH MANUJA )
'dk kamra'                                            JUDGE
             Whether Speaking/reasoned                  Yes/No
             Whether Reportable                         Yes/No




                                  5 of 5