CR No.7880 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.7880 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.8.2011 Minakshi wife of Suresh Singh Kanwar ......Petitioner(s) Versus Tara Devi widow of Ram Lal ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. The petitioner, who alleges herself as owner and landlord of the demised premises, has filed the instant revision petition challenging the impugned orders of the Courts below whereby ejectment petition filed by her for eviction of the respondent was dismissed. As per the averments made in the ejectment application, the petitioner claimed that Uttam Devi wife of Tarlochan Singh was the owner of the property in question who had rented out the demised premises to the respondent and after her death, the petitioner had become the owner of the demised premises vide gift deed No.2677 dated 27.8.1996 and thus, has stepped into the shoes of the original landlord. The respondent failed to pay the arrears of rent therefore, she was liable to be ejected. The ejectment petition was contested by the respondent denying the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was specifically pleaded by the respondent that the petitioner was neither owner nor landlord of the demised premises. The respondent was paying CR No.7880 of 2010 (O&M) 2 rent to Smt. Shanta Devi, daughter of original owner Uttam Devi regularly. It was further asserted by the respondent that a question of title between the petitioner and the legal heirs of Uttam Devi was pending in the Civil Court and thus, the eviction petition was liable to be dismissed. After considering the evidence on record and the arguments made on behalf of the parties, the Rent Controller found that there exists no relationship of landlord-tenant between the petitioner and the respondent. While recording the said finding in his judgment dated 25.2.2004, the Rent Controller also took notice of the findings given in Civil Suit No.RBT/CS/65 of 1999 titled as Shanta Kumari v. Meenakshi, wherein, the plaintiffs were held to be the owners of the demised premises and the present petitioner was not held to be the owner of the premises in dispute. The Rent Controller also observed that from the records, it was also proved that the respondent was not in arrears of rent. Resultantly, the eviction petition was dismissed. In an appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order of the Rent Controller, the Appellate Authority affirmed the findings vide its judgment dated 6.8.2010. Still not satisfied, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant petition. This revision petition was ordered to be heard along with RSA No.4396 of 2010 vide order dated 4.4.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner has very fairly stated before this Court that in view of the judgment of this Court in RSA No.4396 of 2010 arising out of Civil Suit No.RBT/CS/65 of 1999 wherein it has been held that the petitioner is not the owner of the demised premises, the present revision petition is without any merit and is liable to be dismissed. Since in RSA No.4396 of 2010 decided on 10.8.2011, the validity of gift deed dated 27.8.1996 set up by the petitioner has not been CR No.7880 of 2010 (O&M) 3 accepted and it has been held that the petitioner is not the owner of the demised premises, this revision petition has no merits. Dismissed. August 10, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE