C.R. No.1117 of 1992 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.1117 of 1992 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.05.2009 Kashmiri Lal .......Petitioner Versus Firm M/s Madan Lal Vijay Kumar, Joint Hindu Family Firm through its Karta Vijay Kumar ....Respondent Present: None for the parties. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The only ground that survived for consideration before the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority in the order of ejectment was the finding rendered by them that the rent deed relied on by the landlord to establish the jural relationship of landlord and tenant had been established and finding that since the tenant had not paid the rent to landlord, he was liable to eviction. The other grounds urged by the landlord were rejected both by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority. 2. The landlord as well as the tenant examined on their respective sides, two different handwriting experts to speak about the genuineness of the signature found in the rent note. While the witness brought by the landlord deposed in favour of the landlord, predictably the witness brought by the tenant as handwriting expert spoke in C.R. No.1117 of 1992 (O&M) -2- favour of the tenant saying that the signature found in the rent note was not that of the tenant. The landlord further had the benefit of two marginal witnesses, who had signed the rent note and both of whom stated in unison about the fact of their presence at the time when the document was made and when they knew personally that the signatures found in the document were that of the tenant. The Appellate Authority, therefore, found enough grounds to uphold the rent deed relying upon the evidence placed by the landlord through the witnesses, who had signed alongside the signature of the tenant. The genuineness of the document could be also seen by the fact that admittedly the landlord's grandfather Shadi Ram had rented out the premise to the respondent's brother Dharam Chand and after the death of the original tenant, the property had come to the hands of Kashmiri Lal. To this extent, the tenant had also accepted the landlord's contention. 3. The point of difference was only that according to the landlord, there had been a family partition under which the property had come to the share of the landlord's father Madan Lal and the rent deed was executed in favour of Madan Lal and himself in the year 1972. The tenant did not himself deny that he was a tenant but the question was whether he was a tenant under the Firm M/s Madan Lal through Vijay Kumar as a Karta, who was the landlord or it was only the Shadi Ram, who was the owner under whom he was the tenant. The case put forward by the landlord was that there had been a partition in the family when the property had been allotted to Madan Lal. The tenant could not have entered into a dispute questioning the C.R. No.1117 of 1992 (O&M) -3- family partition itself, so long as there was no claim from any one else in the family urging the status of the landlord for him and making conflicting claim against the landlord, who had filed the petition. The denial of the relationship of the tenant with the petitioner, who had filed the petition before the Rent Controller and the non-payment of rent in such manner of denial was certainly actionable and the decision by the Appellate Authority, under the circumstances, is also justified. 4. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed as being without merits. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE May 19, 2009 Pankaj