IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6267 of 2008 Date of decision: 14th November, 2008 Harpreet Singh … Petitioner Versus Bhupinder Kumar and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Bhupinder Kumar and Ashwani Kumar instituted an eviction petition against Gurpreet Singh. It is admitted that a rent note has been executed between respondents-landlord in favour of Gurpreet Singh. The present revision petition under Order 1 Rule 10 has been preferred by the petitioner to get himself impleaded in the eviction petition pending between the respondents-landlord and Gurpreet Singh proforma respondent. There is no document in favour of the petitioner, from which he can establish his tenancy or his claim that he was inducted as tenant in year 2005. Neither there is any rent note nor any receipt, nor even the payment has been made by cheque. The petitioner had filed a civil suit for permanent injunction. He failed to establish himself as a tenant of the landlord in the civil Court and permanent injunction was refused. Rent Controller has dismissed the application preferred by the petitioner formulating a valid opinion that relationship of landlord and tenant is to be determined in the course of eviction petition and the onus is upon Civil Revision No. 6267 of 2008 the landlord to establish that Gurpreet Singh was tenant. Gurpreet Singh has filed reply to the eviction petition, in which he has stated that he is not the tenant, instead Harpreet Singh is the tenant. Therefore, the dispute regarding relationship of landlord and tenant is being fiercely dealt with and the petitioner is not required to be arrayed as party. Rent Controller has exercised discretion and has formulated an opinion. This Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot substitute the opinion, which has been rightly arrived at by the courts below. Petitioner had filed suit in the civil Court on the basis of photographs and document of a Municipal Corporation, therefore, this Court cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner, especially when he has failed before the civil Court. Hence, there is no merit in the present revision petition and the same is dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE November 14, 2008 rps 2