Punjab-Haryana High Court
Akashdeep Singh Khaira vs Chaman Lal Dhamija on 15 February, 2025
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:022516
CR-3989-2018 (O&M) &
other connected cases -1-
236 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of decision : 15.02.2025
1. CR-3995-2018 (O&M)
Akashdeep Singh Khaira ...Petitioner
Vs.
Chaman Lal Dhamija (Deceased) through
his legal representatives ...Respondent
2. CR-3977-2018 (O&M)
Akashdeep Singh Khaira ...Petitioner
Vs.
Shyam Singh Chauhan ...Respondent
3. CR-3989-2018 (O&M)
Akashdeep Singh Khaira ...Petitioner
Vs.
Ramesh Kumar Gupta ...Respondent
4. CR-3937-2018 (O&M)
Akashdeep Singh Khaira ...Petitioner
Vs.
Parshotam Lal Dhamija ...Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Arshdeep Singh Bhullar, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in all the petitions).
Mr. Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate
for the respondent(s) in CR-3989-2018.
1 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 01-03-2025 04:00:27 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:022516
CR-3989-2018 (O&M) &
other connected cases -2-
Mr. N.K. Manchanda, Advocate
for the respondent(s) in CR-3937-2018, CR-3977-2018 and
CR-3995-2018.
***
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. (Oral)
1. Brief facts:-
1.1 With the consent of learned counsel representing the parties, these
four connected revision petitions filed by the landlord challenging the
Appellate Authority's order shall stand disposed of by a common order.
1.2 The only issue that requires adjudication in all these four revision
petitions is, "as to whether the Appellate Authority has erred in reversing the
orders of eviction of the tenants (respondents herein)?".
1.3 In order to comprehend the issues involved in the present case,
some relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.
1.4 Sh. Akashdeep Singh Khaira-the petitioner herein filed various
petitions including four petitions under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban
Rent Restriction Act, 1949 seeking ejectment of the tenants from various
shops. The petitioner claims that his grandmother, namely, Smt. Amarjit Kaur
purchased the property from Sh. Balwant Singh @ Balwant Rai by virtue of
sale deed dated 28.02.1975. Subsequently, Smt. Amarjit Kaur (grandmother)
transferred the property by virtue of a registered sale deed in favour of the
petitioner on 27.03.2012. The petitioner further claims that his grandmother
inducted the respondents or their predecessor(s)-in-interest as tenants. He
prayed for eviction of the respondents on the ground of his bona fide personal
necessity as well as non-payment of rent from 01.01.2010. The respondents
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:022516
CR-3989-2018 (O&M) &
other connected cases -3-
while filing the written statement admitted that they are in possession of the
property as a tenant, however, they claimed that previously 'Money Garments'
was in possession and there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between
the parties. The ownership of the petitioner was also disputed. It was claimed
that previously the shop was in possession of their predecessor(s)-in-interest
and they continue in possession after their death.
1.5 The replication to the written statement was filed by the
respondents. The Rent Controller culled out the following issues:-
"1. Whether there exists a relationship of landlord and
tenant between the petitioner and respondent?
OPP
2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the rate of rent of
the shop in dispute is Rs. 2500/- per month?
OPP
3. Whether the respondent is liable to be evicted
from the shop in dispute, being arrears of rent
since 01.01.2010 till filing of the present petition?
OPP
4. Whether the respondent is liable to be evicted
from the shop in dispute, as the petitioner requires
the same for his own use and occupation? OPP
5. Whether the petition of the petitioner is not
maintainable in the present form? OPR
6. Relief."
1.6 The Rent Controller found that the relationship of landlord and
tenant is proved as the entry in favour of predecessor-in-interest of the
respondent as tenant came into existence in the year 1987 and the petitioners'
grandmother was reflected as an owner. In the Municipal record, the
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:022516
CR-3989-2018 (O&M) &
other connected cases -4-
predecessor of the respondents was shown as her tenant. The Rent Controller
also found that the bona fide necessity of the petitioner is genuine and the
tenants have failed to pay the rent from the year 2010.
1.7 Four appeals were filed before the Appellate Authority. The
Appellate Authority has held that the petitioner's grandmother purchased 1/3rd
share out of 17 marlas 4 sarsahies land by virtue of registered sale deed dated
28.12.1975 from Sh. Balwant Singh @ Balwant Rai, its erstwhile owner.
However, subsequently, Smt. Amarjit Kaur transferred 17 marlas 4 sarsahies
area in favour of petitioner. Hence, the Court held that transfer of 17 marlas 4
sarsahies illegal because she could not transfer more than what she owned.
2. Evidences adduced:-
2.1 In order to prove the case, the petitioner himself appeared in
evidence and examined PW/1-Sh. Ritesh Kumar, Clerk of the Municipal
Council, Moga. He also examined PW/3-Sh. Balbir Singh, PW/4-Gurdeep
Singh, PW/5-Bawa Singh and PW/6-Sh. Davinder Singh Gill.
2.2 In documentary evidence, he produced copy of the Municipal
Council's assessment register pertaining to year 1989-90 and various eviction
orders passed by the Court of Rent Controller with respect to adjoining shops
were also produced.
2.3 Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondents
examined the official firm registration authority and themselves appeared in
evidence.
3. Arguments put forth the by the learned counsel representing
the parties:-
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:022516
CR-3989-2018 (O&M) &
other connected cases -5-
3.1 Heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and
with their able assistance perused the paper-book.
3.2 Learned counsel representing the petitioner has made the
following submissions:-
1. The copy of jamabandi referred to by the Appellate
Authority is not part of the record.
2. Though the relationship of landlord and tenant is denied
by the respondents, however, they have not assailed the
correctness of sale deed executed in favour of the
petitioner.
3. In a rent petition, the ownership of the property is not
required to be decided.
4. The petitioner has proved that his grandmother had
inducted the respondents as tenants in the shop, which is
proved from the Municipal entries from 1987.
3.3 Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondents submits
that though the respondents are tenants, however, they do not know who
inducted them but the petitioner has failed to prove the landlord-tenant
relationship.
4. Analysis and Discussion:-
4.1 This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel representing the parties.
4.2 The Appellate Authority has erred in overlooking the fact that the
petitioner being one of the co-owners of the property is entitled to maintain the
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:022516
CR-3989-2018 (O&M) &
other connected cases -6-
petition while sidestepping the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in 'Mohender Prashad Jain vs. Manoharl Lal Jain', 2006(2) CCC 91
Supreme Court, wherein, it has been held that one co-sharer can initiate
eviction proceedings. The Appellate Authority has further overlooked the fact
that the concept of 'co-owner' with respect to agricultural land while referring
to khewat would not be applicable to the area having construction.
4.3 The Appellate Authority has also overlooked the conclusions
arrived at by the Rent Controller while reversing its judgment. Before setting
aside the lower Court's judgment, the appellate Court is expected to critically
analyze the reasons recorded in the impugned judgment/order.
4.4 The Appellate Authority has overlooked that four similar petitions
filed by the landlord with respect to tenants over the adjoining shops were
allowed. The copies of the judgments were produced on record.
4.5 Moreover, it is not the finding of the Appellate Authority that ten
shops constructed over the plot is beyond the share of the landlord. Even, if the
landlord's grandmother had purchased 1/3rd share out of 17 marlas 04
sarsahies plot still they were co-sharers. Other co-owners have never disputed
the landlord's ownership.
4.6. Additionally, the word 'landlord' is not synonymous with the
'owner'. Any person who is entitled to receive the rent is the landlord. Section
2(c) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Eviction Act, 1949 reads as under:-
"Landlord" means any person for the time being
entitled to receive rent in respect of any building or rented
land whether on his own account or on behalf, or for the
benefit, of any other person, or as a trustee, guardian,
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:022516
CR-3989-2018 (O&M) &
other connected cases -7-
receiver, executor or administrator for any other person,
and includes a tenant who sublets any building or rented
land in the manner hereinafter authorised, and, every
person from time to time deriving title under a landlord.
4.7 It is evident that though the respondents admit to be in possession
of the property of the shops as tenant, however, they are not paying rent to
anyone. The respondents admit themselves to be in possession of the shops as
tenants, however, they have failed to disclose the name of their landlord or
produce receipts to show payment of rent to someone else. In such
circumstances, the Municipal record becomes significant, wherein, the
petitioner's grandmother is recorded as an owner/landlord, whereas,
predecessor of the respondents are reflected tenants under her. Once, the
respondents have failed to disclose the name of their landlord, the Court was
required to draw adverse inference against them because they have withheld
the best evidence. A tenant is expected to know the name and details of his/her
landlord.
4.8 It is not a disputed fact that the respondents have not paid the rent
from 2010. They are in possession of the property for the last 15 years without
payment of rent. The First Appellate Court has also not set aside the findings of
fact arrived at by the Rent Controller that the bona fide necessity of the
petitioner is genuine. It is evident that the judgment passed by the Appellate
Authority is against all canons of law as it goes against the fundamental tenants
of justice and legal norms. The judgment is in complete violation of established
legal principles, rules and precedents.
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:022516
CR-3989-2018 (O&M) &
other connected cases -8-
5. Decision:-
5.1 Consequently, all the four revision petitions are allowed. The
judgment of the Appellate Authority is set aside and that of the Rent Controller
is restored.
5.2 All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
(ANIL KSHETARPAL)
JUDGE
15.02.2025
neeraj
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No
Whether Reportable : Yes No
8 of 8
