IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.819 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.04.2011 N.C.Wadhawan ...Petitioner Vs. S.Jugraj Singh Kang ...Respondent BEFORE: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.R.S.Mittal, Sr. Advocate, with Mr.Chander Shekhar, Advocate, for the petitioner. --- Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. (Oral) This revision is directed against order dated 28.09.2010 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh by which case set up by the tenant/petitioner that he has become owner of the demised premises by way of adverse possession has been rejected while dismissing the eviction petition filed by the landlord under section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 on the ground that he is not the owner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Rent Controller though has held that he has no jurisdiction to decide the question of title which is the prerogative of the civil court yet it has made certain observations with regard to the right of ownership claimed by the petitioner over the demised premises on the basis of adverse possession by holding that he has not proved its basic ingredients. Learned counsel or the petitioner has also submitted that the finding of the learned Rent Controller would ultimately be prejudicial to his interest in case some one files a suit against him with regard to his title. CR No.819 of 2011 2 In this regard, it is clarified that once the Rent Controller holds that he is not having jurisdiction to decide about the question of title on the basis of adverse possession then the observation made by him on issue No.4 in the impugned order would not operate as res judicata. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. 20.04.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) rp JUDGE