CR No.5117 of 2010 (O&M) -1- ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.5117 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:14.03.2011. Smt. Vidya Devi and others ...Petitioners Versus Subhash Chand and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Pawan Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. R.K.Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.1. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the Courts below by which the petitioners have been ordered to be evicted from the demised premises. In brief, the demised premises (house) was owned by Narain Dass who allegedly sold it to Subhash Chand (respondent No.1 herein) on 03.04.2003/10.04.2003. This sale deed was challenged by one of the sons of Narain Dass, namely, Surinder Singh by way of filing Civil Suit No.297 of 03.04.2004 which was instituted on 06.06.2003. In the said Civil Suit, the case set up by the plaintiff Surinder Kumar was that he is son of Narain Dass who was arrayed as defendant No.2 in the suit and being Hindus they are governed by the Mitkashra law. Defendant No.2 (Narain Dass) had no competence to sell the house in dispute to defendant No.1 (Subhash Chand) without any legal necessity and he being a man of bad vices had sold it to the detriment of the interest of the plaintiff and other members of the family. During the pendency of the said civil suit, Narain Dass unfortunately expired and was represented through his other legal representatives. In Civil Court, issue was framed with regard to ownership and possession of the house in dispute. Both the parties led their respective CR No.5117 of 2010 (O&M) -2- ***** evidence and ultimately a finding was recorded by the Civil Court that Narain Dass was the sole owner of the property in dispute which was sold by him during his life time, which could not be challenged by the plaintiff Surinder Kumar in any way. It was also held that Narain Dass had executed the rent note dated 10.04.2003 as a result of which Surinder Kumar and the other legal representatives of Narain Dass were in occupation of the demised premises. While the civil suit was filed on 06.06.2003, the landlord/respondent No.1 filed the Rent Petition No.46 on 22.09.2005 on the ground of non-payment of rent. In the eviction petition, the legal representatives of Narain Dass had alleged that the present respondent No.1 is neither the landlord nor entitled to claim their eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent. They denied the execution of sale deed Ex.P1 and the rent note Ex.P2. Both the courts below have given a concurrent finding of fact that the documents have been duly executed by Narain Dass during his life time and the particulars of fraud had not been disclosed at all in reply. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that there is no evidence on record about payment of sale consideration at the time of execution of the sale deed Ex.P1, therefore, respondent No.1 cannot claim himself to be owner and landlord of the property in dispute to seek eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent. On the contrary, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has stated that this issue has already been decided by the Civil Court that the sale deed was duly executed and Narain Dass had the competence to do so, therefore, this matter cannot be re-agitated before the Rent Controller. Be that as it may, the Rent Controller himself has taken into consideration the documents and has given a concurrent finding about the due execution of the sale deed Ex.P1 and rent note Ex.P2. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and as such, the same is hereby dismissed, however, without any order as to costs. March 14, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE