IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CR No.141 of 2002. Date of decision:13.05.2008. Salig Ram ….Petitioner Versus Kalyan Chand ….Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Petitioner: Mr.Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr.M.S. Guleria, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This revision is directed against the judgment of the two Courts below ordering the eviction of the petitioner on the ground of arrears of rent. The learned Rent Controller, as a fact, accepted the plea of the landlord and ordered the ejectment of the petitioner herein. One of the questions raised by the tenant was that the petitioner- landlord was not the owner of the demised premises in question. A similar point was raised before the appellate Authority who held that: “20. In the light of aforesaid circumstances and material on the record, it is apparent that the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2 petitioner stands in the capacity of a land-owner to the respondent qua the demised premises. The land on which the demised premises were erected might be owned by the provincial government, but it was in occupation of the father of the petitioner, who raised two shops therein. Out of it one was let out to the respondent. Subsequently third shop was added by the petitioner himself. Petitioner, as such is owner of the demised premises qua the respondent, as he is entitled to receive the rent from him. Therefore, findings of the learned Rent Controller that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is perfect requiring no interference.” The petitioner seeks to re-agitate this question in this court: Aside from the fact that concurrent findings of the two Courts below cannot be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction, the question regarding determination of title is no more res integra. In Satya Devi vs. M/s.Ram Gopal Angania Ram and Others, ILR (HP Series) 1986, 293) this Court held:- “6. It is well settled law that it is within the domain of Rent Controller to find out if relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties arrayed before him and further that mere denial of such relationship would not oust his jurisdiction. At the same time, his is 3 not the proper forum for determining the question of title which has to be decided by a civil court. In other words, if Rent Controller is of the view that he cannot determine the question of relation ship of landlord and tenant between the parties without deciding the question of title he can refer the parties to the civil court. In this connection, reference may be had to the law laid down in Om Parkash Gupta vs. Dr.Rattan Singh and another, 1963, PLR 543, M/s Kharati Ram Bansi Lal and others vs. Smt.Radha Rani and another, 1968 PLR 978 and Dev Raj and another vs. Sodhan Devi and others, 1978 RCR 146). In these circumstances, this revision petition is disposed of. In case the petitioner has any grievance regarding the ownership of the land he can establish such plea/claim in the Civil Court by filing a Civil Suit. This revision is accordingly disposed of. May 13, 2008. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.