Civil Revision No.102 of 2008 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.102 of 2008 Date of decision: January 14, 2008. Dr. Ashok Chawla ...Petitioner(s) v. Smt. Bindra Wati ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest. Present: Shri G.S. Bal, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - This Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 3.3.2006 passed by the Rent Controller, Jalandhar whereby the application moved by the petitioner to set aside the exparte eviction order dated 16.4.1999 has been dismissed, as well as against the order dated 27.9.2007 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, upholding the aforesaid order of the Rent Controller. The husband of the respondent (late Shri Amar Chand Jain) filed a petition under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 seeking eviction of the petitioner from house No.15, Sehdev Market, Opposite P&T Colony, Jalandhar. The petitioner's eviction was Civil Revision No.102 of 2008 -: 2 :- sought inter-alia, on the ground that he was in arrears of rent @ Rs.2500/- per month with effect from 1.2.1995, besides house tax @ 15% of the rent; (ii) the petitioner had made material alterations and addition without permission of the landlord and had, thus, diminished the value and utility of the building; and (iii) the petitioner had allegedly impaired the value and utility of the premises by constructing a room on the terrace. In response to the notice issued by the Rent Controller, the petitioner appeared and filed a written statement in which he also took a preliminary objection that Amar Chand Jain (husband of the respondent) was not owner of the premises and had, thus, no locus standi to file the eviction petition. The petitioner rather asserted himself to be a “licencee” under one S.P. Mohindru. The petitioner also denied the ownership of Bhoj Raj, namely, brother of Amar Chand Jain (since dead), who had allegedly died issueless and whose property devolved firstly upon his mother Smt. Jwandi Devi and after her death, upon later's other son Amar Chand Jain. The learned Rent Controller framed five issues, including issue No.1 as to whether there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Yet another issue regarding rate of rent and the arrears thereof was also framed. On the basis of evidence on record, which included certified copy of the sale deed dated 17.7.1975 (Ex.A2), it was held by the Rent Controller that the subject property was purchased by Bhoj Raj from one Sehdev Singh. The wife of Bhoj Raj pre-deceased him. Bhoj Raj was issueless. After the death of Bhoj Raj, the property was inherited by his mother Jwandi Devi. Subsequently, Jwandi Devi also expired and her estate was inherited by her another son, namely, Amar Chand Jain – respondent/landlord, who was brother of Bhoj Raj. On this premise, the Civil Revision No.102 of 2008 -: 3 :- learned Rent Controller further held that Amar Chand Jain was the owner of the subject property as also landlord of the petitioner – tenant. Since, there was no evidence on record to dispute the rate of rent, learned Rent Controller held that the same was Rs.2500/- per month, which was admittedly not paid or deposited by the petitioner. An ex-parte eviction order was accordingly passed on 16.4.1999 against the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter moved an application on 21.9.2001 for setting aside the exparte eviction order on the ground that on 30.3.1999 when the case was fixed for his evidence, he attended the court but the file was not traceable. He was allegedly asked to enquire about the file on the next day but the same was still missing. Meanwhile, Amar Chand Jain, owner of the property and petitioner in the eviction petition, died on 25.7.1999. The petitioner further averred that he had been “presuming that the petition might have been withdrawn or dismissed but at a later stage the respondent came to know that the petition has been decreed on 16.4.1999”. The above stated application was dismissed by the Rent Controller and his order has further been upheld by the Appellate Authority also. As may be noticed from the totally vague and evasive plea taken by the petitioner in his application dated 21.9.2001, he has miserably failed to explain his willful absence from the eviction proceedings pending before the learned Rent Controller. His presumption that the eviction petition might have been withdrawn or dismissed, has no factual basis more so when the deceased Amar Chand Jain had left behind his legal representatives, including his wife – the respondent herein, who stepped into the shoes of her deceased husband. Civil Revision No.102 of 2008 -: 4 :- The petitioner's audacity to question the title of his landlord and his refusal to pay any rent to him, does suggest that he deliberately chose to remain absent and allowed the exparte decree to be passed so that he could prolong his eviction without paying anything. It may be mentioned here that the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner was asked to seek instructions as to whether or not the petitioner was ready and willing to pay the arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.1.1995 as demanded by the landlord, without prejudice to his legal rights. The petitioner, however, offers rent @ Rs.250/- p.m. only and that too for a limited period. In these circumstances, having regard to the cryptic and laconic plea taken by the petitioner and that too with no factual support and also keeping in view his conduct, no case to interfere with the impugned orders is made out. Dismissed. January 14, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge