IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL REVISION NO.3914 OF 2007 DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 17, 2008 Atma Ram .....Petitioner VERSUS Palpinder Singh Sandhu ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. B. R. Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Sh.Palpinder Singh Sandhu, non-resident Indian and owner of property bearing No.52 and 53, Khasra No.460/352 min in Islamabad Development Scheme, Amritsar, had filed petition for ejectment of the petitioner, Atma Ram, under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (for short, “the Act”). Respondent Palpinder Singh claimed that he is the owner of the above referred property, which was purchased in the year 1956 and thereafter building stand constructed thereon. Father of the petitioner, Surja Ram, was inducted as a tenant in respect of one of the shop forming part of the building. Surja Ram died and petitioner, Atma Ram, occupied the demised shop and thus, became tenant. He sought his ejectment on the ground that he is a non resident Indian, who has returned to India and is owner of the CIVIL REVISION NO.3914 OF 2007 :{ 2 }: property for the last 5 years, it having been sold to him in the year 1956. His plea further is that he needs this premises bonafidely for his own use and occupation as he wanted to open a departmental store. According to the respondent, this property is very suitable for the said purpose and except for this building, he is not in possession of any other building and had even not got vacated any such building in Urban area of Amritsar. In his written statement filed, the petitioner raised preliminary objection in regard to maintainability of the application under Section 13-B of the Act. It is pleaded that the respondent had no locus-standi to file the application and he is estopped from doing so by his own conduct. It is also urged that the respondent can not be treated as a N.R.I. in terms of law. Other pleas in regard to the application having been moved with malafide and the same being bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties are also raised. In addition, the petitioner has also disputed the ownership of the respondent. According to the petitioner, M/s Sohan Boot House had rented this shop through Surja Ram, father of the petitioner and after his death, the petitioner had become proprietor of M/s Sohan Boot House and is in possession of the said shop. According to the petitioner, he is personally not a tenant in the shop and as such, there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Plea also is that the respondent is not NRI and the property is not suitable for opening a departmental store. It is claimed that the property numbers 52 and 53 are separate units and M/s Sohan Boot CIVIL REVISION NO.3914 OF 2007 :{ 3 }: House is in property bearing No.52 whereas the shop in dispute is the property bearing No.53. It is also pleaded that the respondent had got vacated other properties from the tenants including one Madan Lal son of Kalu Ram of M/s Madan Shop. On this premise, prayer for dismissal of the petition is made. The Rent Controller allowed the application for ejectment of the tenant, which he has now impugned by way of present revision petition. Mr.B.R.Mahajan, appearing for the petitioner, would mainly concentrate in submitting that respondent-landlord could not prove himself to be an owner of the demised property as he did not have any sale deed or other documents showing his title as an owner of the same. The Rent Controller has referred to the evidence given by Vijay Kumar (AW1) working as a Clerk in the Improvement Trust, Amritsar, who produced certified copies of 17 documents from A1 to A17, which were the copies of letters, forms etc. Original site plan of Plot Nos.52 and 53 was also produced by this witness as Ex.A-15. Certified copy of the original record pertaining to sale deed dated 17.5.1997 was exhibited as A-16. Copy of the record Exhibit A-17 also pertained to sale deed. Sh.Anil Sharma, Advocate (AW4) deposed through his affidavit Ex.Aw4/4 that Plot Nos.52 and 53 is a single unit. Site plan was also proved on record. The petitioner, in support of his case, examined Rakesh Kumar (RW1), Parmod Kumar (RW2) and himself appeared in the witness box as RW3 and deposed on the lines of his stand taken in the written statement. The plea that the respondent failed to prove on record that he is owner of the property in question five years prior to CIVIL REVISION NO.3914 OF 2007 :{ 4 }: the filing of the petition was also raised before the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller found that the respondent was able to prove that he is owner of the property in question. While dealing with this aspect, the Rent Controller has held that word “owner” has not been defined and it would generally mean person having dominion over a thing corporeal or incorporeal and a right of enjoyment and disposition one who has full dominion over property with a right to sell or otherwise dispose it of without accountability to any one. It is in this background, the learned Rent Controller appreciated the evidence and the agreement, Ex.P2, which is dated 20.5.1996 in the light of letter of Amritsar Improvement Trust to Sh.Boota Singh regarding plot Nos.52 and 53. The Rent Controller also referred to the admission of the petitioner to the effect that the respondent was legal heir of Boota Singh and has opined that non-registration of a sale deed would not be enough to prove that the applicant was not the owner. These agreements are in favour of the father of the respondent who had paid the entire amount to Amritsar Improvement Trust. It is found that it is not possible to say that the respondent or his father would not have any interest in the property in question. The Rent Controller referred to the cases of Jeet Kumari Vs. Girdhari Lal, 2003 (4) ICC 501 and Smt.Munni Devi Vs. Manmohan Verma and others, 2007 (1) RCR 223. The Rent Controller also referred to the evidence of Rakesh Kumar produced by the petitioner to notice that he had made some self contradictory pleas. The assertion made by petitioner, Atma Ram, in his affidavit that he is proprietor of M/s CIVIL REVISION NO.3914 OF 2007 :{ 5 }: Sohan Boot House, which is being run in property bearing No.53 was not appreciated on the ground that this property was found to be part of Plot No.52. There is nothing on record, from which something contrary could be urged in regard to the ownership and situation of the property, which would require any interference while exercising the revisional jurisdiction. The finding of fact does not call for any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The present revision petition is accordingly dismissed. January 17,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE