IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.3362 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 20.08.2009
Manjit Singh .....Petitioner
versus
Sukhwinder Singh and another .....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
Present : Mr.K.S.Rekhi, Advocate, for the petitioner.
-.-
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
---
ORDER
Surya Kant, J. (Oral)
This revision petition is directed by the petitioner-tenant
against whom an eviction order dated 5.10.2007 has been passed by the
Rent Controller, Amritsar, on the ground of non payment of arrears of rent
w.e.f. 1.02.1991 @ Rs.1200/- per month and whose appeal against the
aforestated eviction order has also been dismissed by the Appellate
Authority, Amritsar vide its order dated 8.4.2009.
The respondents-landlord filed the eviction petition, inter-alia,
on the ground that the petitioner-tenant has failed to pay the rent at the
agreed rate of Rs.1200/- per month w.e.f. 1.02.1991. Upon notice, the
petitioner-tenant refused to tender the arrears of rent and took up a plea
C.R. No.3362 of 2009 2
that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The
petitioner averred that there is an agreement to sell in his favour in respect
of the demised premises which had already been sold to him and he had
improved his status from tenant to prospective owner. On the other hand,
the respondents-landlord denied the execution of any agreement to sell and
reiterated that the petitioner is a tenant under them.
The following issued were framed by the Rent Controller:
“1) Whether there exists relationship of landlord and tenant
between the parties? OPP.
2) If issue No.1 is proved, whether the respondent is in
arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.12.1991 at the rate of Rs.1200/-
per month? OPP.
3) Whether Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to try and
entertain the present rent petition? OPR
4) Relief."
While deciding Issue Nos.1 & 2 together, the Rent Controller
has categorically held that the petitioner has neither been able to prove any
`agreement to sell’ nor a `sale deed’ in his favour. In fact, no such
document has been brought on record by him. On the other hand, the
respondent-landlords have proved that the petitioner was inducted as
tenant w.e.f. 1.4.1990 and he executed the rent note in favour of the
respondents on 4.10.1990 (Ex.A-1). On this premise, the Rent Controller
concluded that there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between
the parties and since the petitioner, despite an opportunity, has failed to
tender the arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.02.1991, there could be no other
consequence in law but to pass an order of eviction.
C.R. No.3362 of 2009 3
The petitioner-tenant went in appeal. The appellate authority
has re-appraised the entire evidence and re-affirmed that the petitioner was
inducted as tenant w.e.f. 1.4.1990 and he executed the rent note Ex.A-1 in
favour of the respondent-landlord. The appellate authority has also found
that there is not even iota of evidence led by the petitioner to prove any
agreement to sell or sale deed in his favour on the basis of which he denied
the relationship of landlord and tenant. There is nothing on record to
suggest that the petitioner offered the payment of rent even before the
appellate authority also.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length
who has reiterated the same contentions as were raised by the petitioner-
tenant before the Courts below.
In these circumstances and having regard to the concurrent
findings of fact, no case of interference with the impugned orders is made
out.
Dismissed.
20-08-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE