Civil Revision No.4076 of 2010 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4076 of 2010 Date of decision: September 10, 2010. Raj Kumar ...Petitioner(s) v. Sanjay Kumar ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri Aman Kashyap, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Shri Rajinder Goyal, Advocate, for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia , J. (Oral): CM Nos.22912-13-CII of 2010 Allowed subject to all just exceptions and the documents appended thereto are taken on record. CR No.4076 of 2010 The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 23.4.2010 passed by the Rent Controller, Narwana whereby he disallowed examination of Laxman Dass as a witness of the tenant. Respondent – Sanjay Kumar instituted an eviction petition against the tenant – Raj Kumar. An application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was filed by one Laxman Dass to become a party to the eviction petition. The application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was allowed. Sanjay Kumar Civil Revision No.4076 of 2010 -: 2 :- assailed the order by filing a revision petition in this Court. This Court had come to a conclusion that Laxman Dass could not be impleaded as the claim for eviction by persons claiming to be landlords will be decided by establishment of the jural relationship of landlord and tenant and the same will not depend on title. After the application, whereby Laxman Dass was sought to be impleaded, was rejected by this Court, tenant sought to examine Laxman Dass as a witness. An application was filed by the respondent-landlord that Laxman Dass cannot be examined as a witness because earlier his application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was dismissed. The Rent Controller accepted the application by observing as under:- “After considering the facts, circumstances of the case in hand and with due deference to the real spirit behind order dated 3.3.2009 (ibid) of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, this court is of the opinion that Laxman Dass should not be permitted to be examined as respondent witness because said Laxman Dass has already been disallowed to become a party in the present rent petition as per order ibid of Hon'ble High Court by observing that in a claim for eviction establishment of jural relationship of landlord and tenant is only required and proof of title is immaterial. Said Laxman Dass had obviously in his application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC claimed himself as owner/landlord of demised premises against Baru Mal, father of present respondent Raj Kumar. It is also the defence of respondent Raj Kumar that his father Baru Mal is the tenant of Laxman Dass. Hence, this court is of the opinion that Civil Revision No.4076 of 2010 -: 3 :- Laxman Dass be not permitted to examine as respondent witness in the facts of the case in hand. Application is hereby allowed accordingly.” To be impleaded as a party to the eviction petition is one thing and to depose as a witness is another. Tenant cannot be denied his right to examine Laxman Dass as his examination is necessary for determination of landlord-tenant relationship. Hence, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The same is set aside. The application filed by landlord that examination of Laxman Dass be not allowed, is dismissed. The petition is accordingly allowed. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] September 10, 2010. Judge kadyan