Civil Revision No.2319 of 2010 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2319 of 2010 Date of decision: September 09, 2010. Malkiat Singh Nandhra ...Petitioner(s) v. Dr. Devinder Sehdev ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Shivani Bhargav, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Shri Mandeep Singh Sachdev, Advocate, for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia , J. (Oral): In the present revision petition, a prayer has been made that the order dated 10.3.2010 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Rent Controller, whereby he has disallowed the objection filed by the petitioner for deleting para 4 to 6 of the affidavit Ex.RW1/A, be set aside. Tenant himself appeared as RW1 and filed his affidavit. In para 4, he had averred as under:- “That the petitioner is neither the owner nor he has any connection or concern or title with the property in question. The alleged sale-deed produced by him does not pertain to the property in question nor he has proved on the record that the alleged sale-deeds are having any connection or concern with the property in question.” Civil Revision No.2319 of 2010 -: 2 :- When the tenant was in witness box, Counsel for the petitioner was not available for cross examination as he was busy in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar and was cross examining the witnesses in case titled “PSEB v. Sarswati Steels”. An objection was raised that before commencement of the cross examination, above stated para 4 of the affidavit be deleted. Petitioner-landlord had filed a petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. Tenant was granted leave to defend and he had raised objection that petitioner was not owner of the property indispute and furthermore, his ownership was not more than five years old, therefore, application under Section 13-B of the Act was not maintainable. According to Counsel for the respondent, an issue was framed to the effect that, “whether petitioner-landlord is owner of the property or not?”. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the tenant to plead a fact which was necessary for adjudication of the issue formulated by the Rent Controller. Grievance spelt out by Counsel for the petitioner is that earlier petitioner-landlord had challenged the order whereby leave to defend was granted and in that, an observation was made by this Court that landlord, being a co-owner, is entitled to file petition under Section 13-B of the Act and maintain an eviction petition. Therefore, review petition was filed by the tenant in which this observation was reiterated. Later on, in another revision petition, filed by another tenant, a prayer was made that Finger Print Expert be allowed to be examined, to question the validity of the Will on the basis of which landlord had succeeded. In that petition also, an observation was made that validity of the Will cannot be examined by the Civil Revision No.2319 of 2010 -: 3 :- Rent Controller and examination of finger print expert was not necessary as petitioner had become owner of the property on the basis of Will made by his brother Piara Singh. This Court had made observations in the order dated Annexures P-1 to P-3 while determining the validity of interim orders passed during the pendency of the eviction petition. These observations in itself will not cease the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller to adjudicate as to whether the petitioner was owner of the property or not. On that issue, Rent Controller has to pronounce the judgment and for that purpose, parties have to lead evidence. Therefore, the Rent Controller has rightly disallowed the objection. Observations made in the Annexures P-1, P-2 and P-3 were in the context of determining the validity of orders impugned therein and were not final words to oust the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller to adjudicate upon the triable issue. There is no merit in the present petition, which is hereby dismissed. Without taking the observations made by this Court in Annexures P-1 to P-3 into consideration, the Rent Controller has to decide the issue on the basis of evidence led by the parties. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] September 09, 2010. Judge kadyan