CR No.1828 of 2011 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1828 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision:05.04.2011 Dr. Partap Chand Kapoor . . .Petitioner Versus Ram Dass and others . . . Respondents ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.Padam Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the orders passed by the Courts below by which petitioner has been ordered to vacate the demised premises which is in his possession on rent @ `20/- per month since 1970. In brief one Jiwa Singh was the owner of the property in dispute. The petitioner has claimed that he was inducted as tenant by Kartar Kaur widow of Jiwa Singh on rent @ `20/- per month, who had later on executed mortgage deed in his favour as a result of which relationship of landlord and tenant came to an end and he came to be in possession as a mortgagee. Later on the property in dispute was sold by the four sons of Jiwa Singh to respondents No.1 and 2 vide registered sale deed dated 9.9.1970. Both the respondents No.1 and 2 are settled abroad, who have filed the petition through their GPA Baljeet Kumar for the purpose of seeking eviction of the tenant/petitioner. It is an admitted fact that earlier landlord had tried to evict the petitioner by filing petition under Section 13B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short ‘the Act’) but in that case leave to defend was granted by the Rent Controller to the tenant against which the landlord had filed CR No.6418 of 2008 which was admitted on 18.1.2010 and is still pending. It is also a matter of fact that the tenant had filed Civil Suit No.389/2003 on 12.4.1996 for seeking declaration that he has become the owner of the demised premises by way of adverse possession. The said suit CR No.1828 of 2011 (O&M) - 2 - was dismissed upto the Supreme Court, as stated by learned counsel for the petitioner, in which it has been held that respondents No.1 & 2 herein are the owners. The landlord then filed present petition under Section 13 of the Act seeking eviction of the tenant, inter alia, on the grounds of non-payment of rent from 1.1.1975, the building is unfit and unsafe for human habitation and that it is required for construction for the purpose of personal use. In this petition, the consistent stand of the tenant was that since he is the owner of the property in dispute, therefore, there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and in view thereof, he did not tender the rent even @ `20/- per month. He claimed himself to be a ‘trespasser’ though it was only pleaded. Both the Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact on the basis of the decision in the Civil Suit by which defendants No.1 and 2 have been held to be the owners of the demised premises and had stepped into the shoes of landlord for filing the present revision petition. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, who is mainly challenging the question of relationship of landlord and tenant in this revision petition and has also objected to the general power of attorney in favour of Baljeet Kumar, I do not find any substance in his arguments because the relationship of landlord and tenant was denied by the tenant but has miserably failed to prove that he has become the owner. Since he has failed to prove that he has become owner of the demised premises by virtue of a document alleged to have been executed by Kartar Kaur in his favour and has only alleged that he is a ‘trespasser’ in the property in dispute, he cannot take the plea that a Civil Suit should have been filed instead of filing an eviction petition before the Rent Controller. In view thereof, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and as such the same is hereby dismissed in limine. No costs. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) APRIL 05, 2011 JUDGE Vivek