Civil Revision No. 2694 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 2694 of 2010 Date of Decision: 24.9.2010 Dr. Manmeet Kaur …Petitioner Versus Raghbir Singh …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. R.S. Ghuman, Advocate for the petitioner. Dhruv Pal, Advocate for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present revision petition has been filed by the tenant being aggrieved against the order of eviction dated 1.4.2010, passed by the Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur, in the eviction petition, instituted by the respondent, under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as “1949 Act”). Admittedly, Raghbir Singh, landlord and owner of the demised property, is a Non Resident Indian. As to what was disputed before the Rent Controller, is the relationship of landlord and tenant and it was stated that Raghbir Singh has no concern with the property in dispute, which belonged, owned and was possessed by his brother Bikkar Singh. To say so, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the cross- Civil Revision No. 2694 of 2010 2 examination of Raghbir Singh, which is reproduced in the present petition. It is stated in the cross-examination that the electric connection of the building in dispute was in the name of his brother Bikkar Singh, whose name is also entered as the owner of the building in question and he was collecting rent from the tenants of the demised shop and after the death of Bikkar Singh, his sons were receiving the same. The receipts of rent Ex.R1 to R7 were also put to Raghbir Singh and he admitted that they were signed by his brother Bikkar Singh and nephews, respectively. These admissions, made by Raghbir Singh, stand explained, after perusal of the finding, returned by the Rent Controller. It has also come in the evidence that Raghbir Singh, who is a Non Resident Indian, had executed a power of attorney Ex.A3 in favour of his brother Bikkar Singh. Learned counsel for the petitioner has shown photocopy of power of attorney Ex.A3. On perusal thereof, it is evident that Bikkar Singh was authorized to erect the building and to lease them out to the tenants on behalf of his brother-landlord Raghbir Singh. Bikkar Singh was also authorized to register the lease deed, to receive payment of rent and issue receipts thereof. In his cross- examination, Raghbir Singh had also admitted that he made no effort to file any application for change of ownership of electric connection or for introducing his name in the municipal records. It is not the case of the parties that Bikkar Singh and his sons were at a loggerhead. The power of attorney has been given due sanctity by the Rent Controller to hold that Bikkar Singh was acting on behalf of his brother Raghbir Singh, who is the owner of the property in dispute. The following findings of the Rent Controller justified the Civil Revision No. 2694 of 2010 3 inference drawn:- “...Perusal of Ex.A3 reveals that applicant had given power of attorney to his brother Bikkar Singh for construction of shops in dispute, to secure loan from a bank, which indicates that Bikkar Singh was acting as attorney on behalf of applicant. To wriggle out of the situation it was argued by Advocate Mr. Sharma that as per Ex.A3 property where construction was to be made was to be leased out to bank and not to respondent. Argument raised by Mr. Sharma is alluring one on the fact of it, but when considered in depth,it is found to have no legs to stand for the obvious reason that there is not an iota of evidence to prove that there is any other building constructed on behalf of applicant in pursuance of Ex.A3 or it has been leased out to bank, but fact is thatEx.A3 relates to 31.12.1982 and tenancy in favour of respondent was created much later thereof...”. Along with the power of attorney, due credence has also been given to jamabandi Ex.A2 for the year 2003-04 to hold that respondent Raghbir Singh was owner of the property in dispute The Rent Controller has further observed as under:- “...When evidence of applicant coupled with documentary evidence is evaluated, it is found that demised premises are situated in khasra No. 47//2/4 owned by applicant Raghbir Singh”. Civil Revision No. 2694 of 2010 4 To controvert this, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Jattu Ram v. Hakam Singh and Others AIR 1994 Supreme Court 1653 and State of H.P. v. Keshav Ram and Others AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2181 to say that the entry made in the jamabandi has no presumption regarding the ownership. There is no quarrel with this proposition. The jamabandi has been taken as a corroborative piece of evidence along with the testimony of respondent Raghbir Singh. Raghbir Singh was a truthful witness who admitted that his brother Bikkar Singh was acting on his behalf, therefore, the electric connection was also got sanctioned in his name. Since Raghbir Singh was having implicit trust in his brother Bikkar Singh, who was acting on his behalf, there was no need to approach municipal authorities or Electricity Board for change of name in their record. This Court cannot become oblivious of the fact that relations between the brothers were cordial and Bikkar Singh was acting on behalf of the principal as an agent. Thus, Raghbir Singh was the landlord and owner of the property in dispute. This Court cannot become oblivious of the fact that a Non Resident India, settled abroad, cannot act for day-to-day care of his property. For this purpose, Raghbir Singh had executed a power of attorney and was relying upon his brother Bikkar Singh. In these circumstances, no interference is warranted in the present revision petition, the same is hereby dismissed and the order dated 1.4.2010, passed by the Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur, is upheld. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge September 24, 2010 “DK”