CR No.2899 of 2011 (O&M) -1- ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.2899 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:03.05.2011. Mohinder Kumar @ Mohinder Pal ...Petitioner Versus Raman Kumar ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Chaman Lal, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. The tenant is in revision against the orders of the Courts below by which he has been ordered to vacate the demised premises which was allegedly let out to him in June, 1997 @ `500/- per month excluding house tax, electricity and water charges etc. The landlord sought eviction of the tenant, inter alia, on the ground of arrears of rent w.e.f. 07.11.1997, demised premises (house) having become unfit and unsafe for human habitation as its walls developed cracks and the roof of the outer room towards western side adjoining the street fell down in rain which was reconstructed by the tenant without permission of the landlord, the tenant is using the portion of the house for storing LPG cylinders in which he is dealing and has, thus, changed the user of the demised premises and the landlord also required the demised premises for his own use and occupation alleging that he has neither occupied any such building in the urban area of Kharar nor had vacated any such building after the commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short “the Act”]. The tenant appeared and tendered rent w.e.f. 01.10.2000 to 31.10.2001 @ `250/- per CR No.2899 of 2011 (O&M) -2- ****** month. He further alleged that the landlord is neither the son of Ram Chand nor he is connected with him and had paid the rent to him under bona fide mistake. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: - “1. Whether the tender made is short and invalid?OPA. 2. Whether the house in question has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation?OPA. 3. Whether the respondent has changed the user of demised premises?OPA. 4. Whether the applicant requires the premises in question for his personal use and occupation?OPA. 4-A. Whether there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties?OPA. 5. Relief. The learned Rent Controller ordered eviction of the tenant on the ground of bona fide necessity of the landlord and while deciding issue No.4-A, the relationship of landlord and tenant was held in favour of the landlord. Though the tenant had tried to assail the finding on issue No.4-A before the learned Appellate Authority, yet remained unsuccessful, as a result of which a concurrent finding was recorded about the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. In the present revision petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued only with regard to the relationship of the parties as landlord and tenant and has urged that since the landlord has not pleaded that he is the landlord of the demised premises, therefore, in the absence of his pleading, the learned Courts below could not have decided the relationship in his favour. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner in detail and perused the orders of the Courts below and have found no reason to disturb finding of fact recorded therein. It has come on record that Ram Chand had adopted the respondent herein who was a claimant before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for compensation in respect of the death of Ram Chand, who died in CR No.2899 of 2011 (O&M) -3- ****** an accident and vide Will Ex.P6, widow of Ram Chand had bequeathed her property in favour of the respondent. AW2 Yogesh Kapil had proved the relationship of Ram Chand with the respondent who was not even cross- examined on that point. Moreover, Lajwanti widow of Ram Chand died on 12.12.1989 but the tenant had failed to disclose name of any other legal heir of Ram Chand and has been paying rent to the present respondent. All these facts are cumulatively sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. In view of the above, I do not find any error in the orders of the Courts below while deciding issue No.4-A. No other point has been raised in respect of the other issues. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and as such the same is hereby dismissed in limine though without any order as to costs. May 03, 2011 (Rakesh Kumar Jain ) vinod* Judge