88 Civil Revision No7862 of 2010 1 1 1N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB HtYANA AT CHANDIGARHe Civil RevisionNo7862 of 2010 Decided on 2682011 ChandiRam Petitioner 2 Versus 0 C I Hari Om 0 I CORAM HONBLE MRe JUSTICE KeCePURI Z l Present 1 Mr Bl2MahajanAdvocate for thepetitioner Mr AnuragJain Advocate for the I Z KCPURI Je m This is a revision petitionfiled bythe against 7 Z the order 992010 by AppellateAuthorityHisar vide which the appeal by the landlordoetitioner was and the order by the leamed Rent Controller Hisar dated 301 12005 stood set aside and the was directedto vacate the premises within twomonth from the dateoforder 2 The brief facts of the case are that petitioner is owner and land lordofthe propertymentionedin the headnote ofthe petitionsituatednear Dhani Barwali Dabra Road Hisar and is tenant under the Kumar Suresh 2013.01.09 17: 20 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 89 vilRevisionNo862 of 2010 2 at a monthlyrent of RsA501 excluding1250Iohouse ulx vide dated33 1990 The rent was to be increasedaRer the expiryof every oneyear is liable to beevictedfrom theshopin question becausehe has not paidthe arrears of rent from August1997 to March 1998at the rate ofRs8001eper monthplushousetax and from 331999 to 22000 at the rate ofRs001 per month and housetax from 332000 to L date at the rate of Rs501e per month plushouse tax despiterepeated 0 demandand remindersIt is further averredthat has closed the 0 shopin question about one year and has not resumedthe same thus ceased 0 to occupy the shopin for the last one year without I any reasonablecause was doingthe work of carpenterin the Z shoppreviouslyand now he started the same businessin a shopnear 2 Nirankar Bhawan Dabra Road Hisar under the name and styleof Azad Furniture It is 8lrther averredthat was asked many a time to Z paythe rent and hand over the vacant of shopin to the m but hereOlsedto do so Hence thepetition W2 3 On put to notice the filed written statement and Z took objections that petitionis false and vexatious petitioner tl has no locus standi to file the presentpetitionpetitioner is estopped to file thepresentpetitionand the Rent controller has 0 to try the petitionOn merits it 1S submittedthatpetitioner is not owner and landlord of any allegedshop The petitioner has not giventhe number of house tax of shopallegedlyowned byhim and absenceof which shows falsehood in hisallegationsThere is no shopat the spot as per boundariesgivenin the headnote of the petitionnor the petitioner lS in of any such Kumar Suresh 2013.01.09 17: 20 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 90 of 2010 3 shopIt is irther averredthat no such shopwas givenon rent to the on monthlyrent ofRsA501 excluding housetax vide agreement dated33 1990 The alleged agreementis bogusand fabricated Actually lSan illiterateperson and the presentpetitionhas been Sled in collusion withSandeep Kumar slo Ram Avtar to harassthe It is 8irther averredthat thereis no of landlord and tenant between 1 thepartiesMoreover bogusagreementis inadmissible in evidence It is 0 8uther averredthat question of being111arrearsof rent does 0 I not arise It is prayedthat thepetition may be dismissed 0 4 Replicationwas not ftled From the pleadingof parties I following issues were framedl Z l 1eWhetherthe is liable to be ejected from theshop I in dispute on thegrounds mentionedin thepetition2 OPP Z 2 Whetherthe has no locus standi to file the r present OPR 7 3Whether the petitioner1S estoppedto file the present Z petition7 OPR 4 Whetherthe Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to try the presentpetition2 OPR 5 Relief 5 Petitionerin the supportofhis case examinedhimselfas PWl He also examinedPWm2Ratan Lal andPW3 JatinderKumar and closed the evidenceaftertendering certaindocuments 6 On the other hand examined himself as RHl and Kumar Suresh 2013.01.09 17: 20 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 91 Civil RevisionN03862 of 2010 4 S closedhis evidenceaftertendering certaindocuments 7 The Rent Controller after hearingthe leamed counsel for the and of the evidence dismissedthe eviction petition of the petitioner vide order dated3011 2005 8 Feelingdissatisfled with the aforesaid eviction order dated 30 112005 the preferredappealbeforethe Appellate 0 Authority Hisar and the saidAppellateAuthority accepted the appeal 0 and ordered for eviction of the vide judgmentdated I 9 92010 I 9 Feeling dissatistledwith the dated9010 e Z the haspreferred the presentrevision petition 2 10 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone L through the recordsofthe case with their able assistance I 08 ll Leamedcounsel for the has submiued that oo crucial pointin this case is of landlord and tenant 7 Z The Rent Controllerafter concludingthe evidence reached to the Om conclusionthat landIordnow hasfailed to prove the of landlord and tenant between the parties The evictlOll Petition was dismissed However the AppellateAuthorityunder the Rent Act has allowedthe additional evidenceregarding the rent note The said rent note was never executedby the The AppellateAuthorityhas reliedupon reportofthe Local CommissionerThat reportbelies the case of theIandlord The eviction has been soughtin respectof shop 10feetx 20feetas detailedin the head note of the petitionHowever the LocalCommissioner who visited the spot4W found the area ofthe shop 14 Kumar Suresh 2013.01.09 17: 20 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 92 CivilRevision No862 of 2010 5 8feet x 10feet only So no evictlOIl order can be passedagainstthe petitioner on theground ofrent 12 Leamed counsel for the petitionerhas relied upon the followingauthoritiesto supporthis contention 11 Om Parkash and others vs Ram Sarup 198421RLR 351 1 r and 21Roshan LaI vs Rehmat Ali 2003 H1U2 623 0 13 It is furthersubmittedthat even the rent note is taken as proved 0 lIl that case it beingan documentcannot be looked into To C5 support this contention learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon 4 theauthorityLachhmi Devi of Chandi2arh vse SatyaWati and another Z 1985 HRR paPe 245 r 14 I have consideredthe said submissionmadeby leamed counsel I for the petitioner and have gonethrough therecordsofthe case Z 15 In this case the landlord ln No l of the petitionhas m statedthatpetitioner is the owner and landlord ofthe shopin questionThe mmo saidfact has been denied The tenant has not pleaded in which capacityhe Z 1S in possessionof the suit propertyHe has not claimed himself to be the ownerofthe propertybut hassimplytakena standthat he is carrying on the businessfor the last 20 years The execution of rent note dated 331990 was denied Before the Rent Controller the rent note was not proved111 accordance with law and accordingly the Rent Controllerhas not the pleaof landlord and of landlordand tenant was held to be not provedHowever in the AppellateCourt the landlord produced additional evidenceto prove the rent note A Local Commissioner was to flnd out the numberofthe shop In the House Tax Assessment Kumar Suresh 2013.01.09 17: 20 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 93 Civil RevisionNo862 of 2010 6 Register Hari Om landlord hasbeenrecorded as land owner The rent note dated 3031990 has been producedon the file before the Appellate Authority 16 Learned counsel for the petitionerwants to discard the report of the Local Commissioner on the groundthat size of the shopis different from the size of the shopmentioned in the petitionIn my view 1 not a C2 groundfor dislodging the landlord Rent note is provedon the flle It is not 0 C the case of the tenant that he has taken any other shopon rent from the D landlord It is also not the case of revisionist rent for the I perioddemandedhas been paid or tenderedin the Court The tenant has Z takenthe standthat the petitionhasbeen flled at the instanceof one Sandip Kumar However that fact has not been substantiated by the t Handwriting ExpertShri ShamsherSinghMalik PWe2I I C8 has provedhis reportExPW41A and has statedthat he has compared the of the on ExP which is standard mm Z and has reached to the conclusion that are on the disputed rent Qm noteand that of the petitioner are the same 17 Civil cases are decided on of evidence The Appellate Authorityhasrightlyheld thatappellant is tenant under Hari Om and has rightlyallowed the petitionof the landlord and passed order of evictionagainstthe The Local Commissionerhasreponed thatAzad Fumiture Works was canyingon the businessin the shopowned bythe landlord This fact has been conoborated by the wriuen reply111 whichhe has statedthat is canyingon businesswith the name andstyleAzad Fumiture Works So in thesecircumstances theSndingof Kumar Suresh 2013.01.09 17: 20 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 94 Civil Revision No3862 of 2010 7 4 fact recordedby the AppellateAuthoritythat petitioner is the tenant under the doesnot call for any interference 18 Admittedly the rent has not been tendered or petitioner has failed to prove that he has paidthe rent for the periodin to the landlord The above said authorities cited by leamed counsel for the petitioner in cases Om Parkash and others case Isupral Roshan Lals C2 case supral and Roshan Lals case supral would not render any helpto 0 the as in both the said cases therewas no rent note in the CD case in hand it has been establishedthat thereexists of landlord and tenant between the partiesby provingthe rent note besidesother Z evidence 19 So far as reliance of appellant on authorityLachhmi Devi of C 4 ChandiParhs case supral is concerned thatrulingis inapplicable to the I c8 factsof the presentcase as documentscan be lookedinto for collateralpurposesie For of landlord and tenant betweenthe m Z parties Llm 20 the reVlSlOll petitionis without any merit and the same standsdismissed 21 However the petitioner is directed to hand over the vacant of the shopin question to the landlord within two monthsOom todayfailingwhich the landlord shall be entitled to getthe 111 accordancewith law Kumar Suresh 2013.01.09 17: 20 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 95 1 Civil Revision N00862 of 2010 8 4 22 A copy of this be sent to the trial Court for strict 9 JUDGE August26 2011 SV 1 t 0 C I D m I Z 2 t I c8 a 3 Z Om l 1 5Utl Kumar Suresh 2013.01.09 17: 20 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document