IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.1778 of 2007
Date of decision: 25th November, 2008
Ashok Kumar
... Petitioner
Versus
Amrik Kaur
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Present: Mr. Sarju Puri, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Malkeet Singh, Advocate for the respondent.
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
This is a case, where leave to defend has been declined in a
mechanical manner by the Rent Controller. In the head note of the eviction
petition instituted by the landlady, Amrik Kaur, it has been stated that
ejectment of the tenant is sought from the shop in dispute, shown in red
colour in the site plan. In para 3 of the eviction petition, it has been stated
by the landlady that 15 years ago the father of the tenant took the shop on
rent from the petitioner @ Rs.500/- per month for one day less of a year.
Application for leave to defend was filed vide Annexure P-2. In para 3
Ground No. (viii), it was stated that the tenant had taken two shops on rent
from Piara Singh, father of the landlady @ Rs.90/- per month for each shop
and the rent for two shops is Rs.180/- per month.
Question to be answered was whether eviction has been
sought from one shop or two shops?
Civil Revision No. 1778 of 2007 2
To controvert, Mr. Malkeet Singh has stated that it was a mere
typographical error. However, there is no discussion by the Rent Controller,
whether the same was a typographical error or not.
Entire pleadings state, tenant is to be evicted from the shop.
I have seen the site plan attached with the plaint. It shows two
separate shops. Each shop has dimension of 14 feet x 12 feet. This
argument was not considered by the Rent Controller rather in para 4 of the
impugned order, it has been stated that the boundary of the site plan tally
with the sale deed produced on record by the landlady. In the concluding
portion of para 4, Rent Controller found the applicant has alleged himself to
be tenant in two shops. It further noticed that “it has been confirmed by the
Court of learned Additional District Judge and the possession of the
applicant on two shops was considered”. Having noticed so, it was
incumbent to consider whether tenant is to be evicted from a shop or two
shops?
To fortify argument, counsel for the petitioner has referred to
Annexure P-3, the order passed by the Additional District Judge,
Nawanshahar in an appeal under Order 39 Rule 2 CPC. Furthermore, in an
application for leave to defend, it was stated that the landlady had rented
other property at Banga to different tenants recently. This fact could only be
proved by the tenant after leading the evidence. Tenant has made
averments and for applying the test of prima facie in the interest of fair play,
adequate opportunity ought to have been given to the tenant to lead
evidence.
Therefore, in the interest of justice, fair play and to balance the
equities, impugned order is set aside and leave to defend is granted to the
tenant. Since in the present case, proceedings are pending since 2003 and
the beneficial provisions enacted in favour of the NRIs also demand that
matter should be resolved at the earliest, therefore, direction is given to the
Civil Revision No. 1778 of 2007 3
Rent Controller to decide the ejectment proceedings within six months.
Both parties shall be afforded three opportunities to conclude their
evidence.
With these observations, present revision petition is disposed
off.
[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA]
JUDGE
November 25, 2008
rps