IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.7064 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.11.2011 Mohinder Singh & others -----Petitioners Vs. Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Malerkotla -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present:- Mr. S.K. Bawa, Advocate for the petitioners. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. 1. In the instant revision petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 1.11.2007 of Rent Controller, Malerkotla dismissing the ejectment petition filed by them and further judgment dated 17.5.2011 of the Appellate Authority, whereby their appeal was also dismissed against the aforesaid order. 2. As per the facts which have emerged out of the impugned orders, the petitioners sought ejectment of the respondent from the demised premises making averments that they had purchased the premises in dispute vide sale deed dated 27.12.1999 and the respondent was occupying the said premises as tenant @ `315/- per month and thus, there existed relationship of landlord and tenant C.R. No.7064 of 2011 between the parties. The ejectment was sought on the ground that the respondent had not paid the arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.1.2000. 3. Upon notice, the respondent appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objection that the application was not maintainable as there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. On merits, it was submitted that the respondent had taken the premises in dispute from one Abdul Rahim Khalid on 16.5.1973 and after his death, his wife Sehabjadi Qudsia Begum inherited the disputed property being his widow. The respondent used to make payment of rent to her. After her death, one Mohd. Ali son of Manjoor Hussain represented himself as landlord of the disputed property on the basis of a power of attorney executed in his favour by Farooq Mohd. Khan, legatee of Sehabjadi Qudsia Begum on the basis of a registered will executed by her in his favour. However, on receipt of representation of the petitioners, the respondent stopped making payment of rent to Mohd. Ali who filed eviction petition against the respondent on the ground of arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.1.2000. The rent was tendered in the Court which was accepted and the application was dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter, again on 7.12.2001, Mohd. Ali filed another eviction petition claiming rent w.e.f. 1.6.2001 which is pending adjudication. One Asgari Begum also filed an application against him which was dismissed in default on 21.3.1997 and thus, when the Asgari Begum failed to prove herself as landlady of the demised premises, the sale deed executed by her in favour of the petitioners does not make them the landlords of the disputed property. Thus, it was submitted that the petitioners were neither owners nor 2 C.R. No.7064 of 2011 landlords of the demised premises and the ejectment petition was liable to be dismissed. 4. From the facts as aforesaid, it is clear that there is dispute regarding the title of the property in question. The petitioners are claiming themselves to be purchasers from one Asgari Begum who herself has failed to prove herself as landlady in the petition filed by her against the respondent. Both the authorities below, on appreciation of evidence which was produced on record have recorded a concurrent finding that the petitioners have failed to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and thus, the petition filed by the petitioners for ejectment of the respondent was not maintainable. 5. Before this Court also, learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to point out any evidence on record of the authorities below on the basis of which findings, as recorded, could be challenged. 6. However, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to an order dated 27.8.2011 (attached as Annexure A-1 with Revision Petition) passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Malerkotla and has claimed that previous owners of the property in dispute have admitted the claim of the petitioners over the suit property and in view of the aforesaid order, the title of the property cannot be denied and therefore, they were entitled to maintain the ejectment petition. 7. A perusal of the aforesaid order would show that the civil suit filed by Mohd. Umar Ali Khan and others against Mohinder Singh and others for declaration was dismissed on the basis of a statement made by the attorney of plaintiff that they do not want to proceed with the case because of compromise. There is no such finding in the said 3 C.R. No.7064 of 2011 order on the basis of which it can be made out that claim of the petitioners over the suit property was accepted by the previous owners. 8. No other point was urged. 9. In view of the aforesaid fact, I find no merit in this petition. 10. Dismissed. November 17, 2011 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ak JUDGE 4