Civil Revision No. 5138 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 5138 of 2010 Date of Decision: 17.8.2010 Kaka …Petitioner Versus Shatrujit Jindia …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Jatinder Nagpal, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The case of the respondent/landlord is that mother of the petitioner was inducted as a tenant on 2.7.1964 at the rate of Rs.5/- per month. In the eviction petition, filed by the respondent/landlord, one of the grounds of eviction was that the petitioner was in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.1.1995. The petitioner caused appearance before the Rent Controller, Nabha and denied the relationship of landlord and tenant, therefore, no rent was tendered. Admittedly, till today, no rent has been paid. The trial Court relied upon the findings returned by the Court of Additional District Judge, Patiala, in a suit for permanent injunction and declaration for restraining the petitioner from demolishing the reconstructed area, to hold that copy of rent note Ex.A1, original copy thereof was exhibited as Ex.P1 in the suit, was validly made between the parties. From the rent Civil Revision No. 5138 of 2010 2 note, produced in the Court and from the findings returned by the Civil Court, it was inferred that the father of the respondent was the landlord and mother of the petitioner was the tenant. Therefore, the Rent Controller came to a conclusion that non payment of rent was a ground to cause eviction of the petitioner. This finding has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority, Patiala. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the finding, recorded in the suit for permanent injunction, is not binding upon the Rent Controller. It is further submitted that no attesting witness was produced to prove authenticity of the rent note Ex.A1, translated copy of which was Ex.A1/A. Both the Courts below relied upon the testimony of respondent and held that since the rent note was executed on 2.7.1964 and the same being 30 years old, can be relied in the evidence. The petitioner has not been able to produce any document to show that he was the owner of the property or in what capacity he was residing in the house. Hence, no ground is made out to interfere with the findings, recorded by both the Courts below and the present revision petition is hereby dismissed, in limine. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge August 17, 2010 “DK”