Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mahesh Shah vs Balwant Singh And Ors on 18 November, 2024
Author: Vikas Bahl
Bench: Vikas Bahl
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150034
CR-6692-2024 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
***
CR-6692-2024
Date of decision : 18.11.2024
Mahesh Shah
... Petitioner
Versus
Balwant Singh and others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr.Naveen Bawa, Advocate
for the petitioner.
VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)
1. Challenge in the present revision petition is to the judgment
dated 11.03.2024 vide which the Rent Controller, Ludhiana has allowed the
eviction petition filed by the respondents. Challenge is also to the order
dated 28.08.2024 vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner has been
dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was
no relationship of landlord and tenant between the present petitioner and the
respondents and that the petitioner had illegally occupied the premises and
was in adverse possession of the same. It is submitted that in the said
circumstances, since there was no relationship between the landlord and
tenant, thus the Rent Authority under the Rent Act had no right to pass the
order of eviction and thus, the impugned order and judgment deserve to be
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150034
set aside and the eviction petition filed by the respondents deserves to be
dismissed.
3. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
has perused the paper book and finds that the pleas raised by the petitioner
are meritless and deserve to be dismissed for the reasons given hereinafter.
4. Respondents no.1 to 6 had filed a petition under Section 13 of
the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for ejectment of the
present petitioner from the shop in question on the averments that Shingara
Singh, father of respondents no.1 and 2 and of deceased Kulwant Singh,
was the owner of a piece of land comprised in khasra no.633, khewat /
khatuni no.848/908 and khasra no.1900/634, 1902/634, khewat / khatauni
no.561/597 situated at Taraf Saidan now known as Bihari Colony, Opp.
Guru Arjan Dev Nagar, Tajpur Road, Ludhiana and on the said land, had
raised construction in the shape of shops for the purpose of letting out and
one of the shops, was let out to the present petitioner at a monthly rent of
Rs.750/-. It was further averred that the present petitioner had started paying
monthly rent and thereafter, Shingara Singh had died on 24.04.2008 and
after the death of said Shingara Singh, the entire property including the shop
in dispute was inherited by the legal heirs of said Shingara Singh and thus,
they became owners/ landlords of the shop in dispute. It was averred that
intimation regarding death of Shingara Singh was given to the present
petitioner, who attorned in favour of the present respondents and started
making payment of rent to them and thus, there was relationship of landlord
and tenant. The eviction petition was filed on the ground that the present
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150034
petitioner had not been paying the arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.12.2011 at the
rate of Rs.750/- per month.
5. In the written statement, the plea taken by the present petitioner
was that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant. The Rent
Controller framed issues and one of the primary issues framed, was as to
"whether the respondent is in arrears of rent or not? OPP" The Rent
Controller vide judgment dated 11.03.2024 allowed the eviction petition on
the ground of non-payment of rent and directed the present petitioner to
vacate the premises in two months time. While coming to the conclusion
that there was relationship of landlord and tenant, the Rent Controller took
into consideration the jamabandi for the year 2002-03, which was duly
exhibited as Ex.P2, and as per which the property in question had been
inherited by Balwant Singh-respondent no.1 along with his brothers being
sons of Shingara Singh. It was further observed that on the other hand, the
respondent had not even produced a single documentary proof to show as to
in what capacity, they were residing in the suit property. It was further
observed that the present petitioner Mahesh Shah had appeared as RW-1
and in his cross-examination, he had admitted that he was the tenant in the
disputed property and after considering the same, the Rent Controller had
passed the said judgment.
6. The Ist Appellate Court had specifically observed in paragraph
21 of its judgment that the present petitioner when he appeared as RW-1,
had admitted the fact that the present respondents were the owners of the
property and that the petitioner was tenant under them and it was further
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150034
observed that once the relationship had been admitted in the evidence, then
the said evidence was the best evidence in favour of the respondents-
landlord and against the petitioner. On the said aspect of admission, several
judgments including the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
the case of Gannamani Anasuya & Ors. vs. Parvatini Amarendra
Chowdhary & Ors. reported as 2007(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 381 were taken into
consideration. Even the jamabandis for the year 2007-08 (Ex.P3 and Ex.P6),
for the year 2002-03 (Ex.P4) and for the year 1997-98 (Ex.P5) were taken
into consideration to come to the conclusion that it were the respondents
who were owners / landlords of the property and the present petitioner was
the tenant under them and accordingly, the appeal of the petitioner was
dismissed.
7. The abovesaid findings clearly show that the aspect with
respect to the relationship of landlord and tenant had been admitted by the
tenant-petitioner, who had appeared as RW-1 and the said admission by
RW-1 has not been disputed before this Court, nor it has been stated that the
said evidence has been misread. The said vital piece of evidence, in addition
to the jamabandis and documents which are already on record, clearly show
that the petitioner is a tenant under the respondents and both the trial Court
as well as the Ist Appellate Court have correctly come to the said conclusion
and the concurrent findings of both the Courts on the said aspect do not
suffer from illegality or perversity. The aspect of the petitioner being in
arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.12.2011 and the finding on the same have not been
challenged and thus, the eviction of the petitioner on the ground of non-
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150034
payment of rent, is in accordance with law.
8. Accordingly, the impugned orders deserve to be upheld and
present revision petition being meritless deserves to be dismissed and is
accordingly dismissed.
(VIKAS BAHL)
JUDGE
November 18, 2024.
Davinder Kumar
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
