Civil Revision No.6143 of 2008(O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6143 of 2008(O & M) Date of decision 31.1.2009 Mohinder Singh .....Petitioner versus Ravinder Singh Bhalla .....Respondent Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan. Present: Mr. Surinder Singh Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. K. Kannan, J (Oral) 1. The landlord who sought for eviction of his tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent was resisted by the tenant stating that he had paid rents at all times and also filed a proof of the alleged payments of rent receipt Ex.R-1. The trial court found the receipt to be forged, as contended by the landlord and ordered eviction. In the appeal, the appellate authority reversed the decision and upheld the contention of the tenant that there was a receipt for the payment of rent issued by the landlord's power of attorney Mohinder Singh Kandola and that the landlord who denied the receipt, did not prove that the receipt was not issued by him. He made pointed reference to the non-examination of the landlord's power of attorney Mohinder Singh Kandola whose alleged signature was found in the disputed rent receipt R-1. 2. Before this Court, it is contended on behalf of the landlord that the appellate court had committed an error in placing the burden of proof on the landlord to establish that the rent receipt was not true. When the Civil Revision No.6143 of 2008(O & M) -2- document had been denied by the landlord, as having been not issued by him and the contest was on the genuineness of the receipt R-1, the burden of proof was clearly on the tenant to prove its genuineness. The burden placed by the lower appellate authority on the landlord was clearly wrong and the approach adopted by the appellate authority for upholding the document cannot stand a minute scrutiny. However, the appellate authority had also considered the non-examination of the landlord's power of attorney Mohinder Singh Kandola as a relevant fact. Before me, the counsel for the revision petitioner contends that the power of attorney was not available in India at the relevant time and PW-2 was examined as an expert has unfortunately died during the course of trial before the cross-examination was undertaken. PW-3 who was an assistant to the expert had to admit in evidence that he did not himself prepare the report and under these peculiar circumstances, the landlord could not place any better evidence which to demolish the evidence adduced on the side of the respondent. 3. There is a considerable strength in the contention that the trial court had examined the quality of each one of the witnesses and had come to the conclusion that the rent receipt was a forged. The reversal of finding at the appellate authority has arisen by the wrong approach that was adopted by placing the burden of proof on the landlord that the rent receipt was not true. The finding of the appellate authority has to be set aside and the revision petition is remitted to the appellate authority for fresh consideration by requiring him to place the burden of proof on the tenant to establish the truth and genuineness of R-1. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner pleads for a fresh opportunity to place on record the evidence of Mohinder Singh Kandola who was unavailable at the relevant time by his Civil Revision No.6143 of 2008(O & M) -3- absence at Canada. For a determination of provisional rent, no further opportunity to examine any more witness could be entertained. 4. It is requested that the appellate authority shall hear the appeal of afresh in the light of the above observations and conclude the judgment within a period of three months from the date of this order after giving both sides the opportunity to address arguments in this regard. 5. In the above circumstances, the order of the appellate authority dated 15.4.2008 is set aside and the matter is remanded to appellate authority for reconsideration as per law. ( K. KANNAN ) JUDGE 31.1.2009 A. Kaundal