IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- C. W. P. No. 5959 of 2006 Date of Decision:- 18.4.2009. Pal .... Petitioner Versus Jarnail Singh .... Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. Present:- Mr. S.S.Chandi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Hemant Gupta, J (Oral) The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 6.10.2006 passed by learned trial Court allowing application under Order 15 Rule 5 of the Code of the Civil Procedure striking of the defence of the petitioner-defendant on account of non-payment of arrears of rent. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for possession and also claimed arrears of rent alleging that he is the owner of the suit property, having purchased the same vide sale dated 8.10.1998. In fact the suit property was conveyed to the father of the petitioner vide sale deed dated 24.3.1965. It is the case of the defendant that the plaintiff is a money lender and defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs.5,000/- from the plaintiff and the plaintiff obtained thumb impressions of defendant on blank papers and might have converted those papers into sale deed and rent note. The learned trial Court found that the plaintiff is presumed to be the owner of the suit property on the basis of a registered document. The rent note also proves that the defendant is a tenant. Since admittedly, the defendant has not been paid the arrears of rent, an order of striking off the C. W. P. No. 5959 of 2006 -2- defendants of the plaintiff-defendant was passed. The defendant-petitioner has chosen not to challenge the sale deed propounded by the plaintiff. Even in the ground of revision, there is no challenge to the sale deed relied upon by the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff is presumed to be owner of the suit property and the defendant is tenant on the basis of the rent note. Thus, the defendant petitioner is bound to make the payment of arrears of rent as claimed by the plaintiffs. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order which may warrant intereference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed. April 17, 2009 (Hemant Gupta) tripti Judge