CR No.8053 of 2010 (O&M) **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.8053 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:10.05.2011. Rajinder Singh . . .Petitioner Vs. Satish Kumar . . . Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Sanjay Tangri, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Puneet Kumar Jindal, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. (Oral) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 30.07.2010 by which the learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar has allowed the application filed by the tenant under Section 18-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short “the Act} by granting leave to defend the application filed by the landlord under Section 13-B of the Act. In short, the landlord filed the eviction petition under Section 13-B of the Act for seeking eviction of the tenant from the demised premises (shop), inter alia, on the ground of personal necessity. He alleged that he is an NRI and is the owner of the demised premises. In respect of his ownership, it was pleaded by the landlord that “the petitioner is the owner of the shop bearing No.13, situated at Shaheed Udham Singh Nagar, Jalandhar. The document of the ownership of the shop is the letter bearing No.1504 dated 29.04.1977 issued by Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar vide which the ownership of the shop bearing No.13, Shaheed Udham Singh Nagar, Jalandhar was transferred in the name of petitioner. Copy of the said letter is attached herewith. The petitioner is the owner of the shop since 1977”. In order to contest the application filed under Section 13-B of the Act, the tenant filed an application under Section 18-A of the Act in which it was alleged that “as per the - 1- CR No.8053 of 2010 (O&M) **** information derived by the applicant/respondent, the petitioner is not the owner of the property in dispute for the last about five years as required under the law and the petitioner is relying upon the forged, fictitious and frivolous documents and as such, the petitioner cannot claim himself to be owner of the said property as required under the Act”. In reply to this paragraph, the landlord had alleged that “sub para (b) of para No.1 of the application is totally wrong and, therefore, specifically denied. The petitioner is the owner of the shop in dispute since 1977 as he had purchased the said shop from the Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar vide letter bearing No.1504 dated 29.04.1977 which is duly filed alongwith the petition and copy of which was also sent to the respondent”. The learned Rent Controller, while allowing the application filed by the tenant, has though observed that “however, it is pertinent to mention here that applicant-tenant has no right to challenge the status of respondent-landlord over the disputed shop. But the heavy onus is laid on the respondent-landlord to prove his ownership of the disputed shop as per the provision enshrined in Section 13-B of the Act”. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide letter No.1504 dated 29.04.1977, the petitioner has been informed by the Jalandhar Improvement Trust that the ownership of Shop No.13, Shaheed Udham Singh Nagar, Jalandhar has been transferred in his favour and the share of the other persons has been deleted. He, thus, submits that the only objection raised by the tenant in his application for seeking leave to defend was that the landlord is not the owner of the property in dispute for the last 5 years as required under the law and is relying upon a forged, false and fictitious document. However, he did not disclose as to how the document, which has been relied upon by the landlord, is forged, frivolous and even fictitious. All that has been argued before the learned Rent Controller is that the landlord has failed to prove that who was the owner of the shop in dispute prior to 1977 on the basis of which, vide letter No.1504 dated 29.04.1977, the shop was transferred in his favour after deleting the name of the joint owner. He also argued that the tenant has failed to disclose in his application, even before the Rent Controller and also before this Court that if he is not the owner, then who is the owner of the demised shop. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the burden is upon the landlord to prove that he is the owner of the demised - 2- CR No.8053 of 2010 (O&M) **** premises for the last 5 years and for that matter it would be suffice if the tenant simply denies ownership of the landlord. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record from which I have found that the landlord had discharged the onus which is upon him by producing on record the letter No.1504 dated 29.04.1977 issued by the Jalandhar Improvement Trust from which it is proved that he is the owner of the demised shop since 1977, but in the absence of anything disclosed by the tenant that either some other person is the owner or the manner in which the document of ownership, i.e. letter dated 29.04.1977, has been prepared is fictitious, I do not agree with the contention raised by learned counsel for the respondent that this document should have been disbelieved by the learned Rent Controller for the purpose of granting leave to defend. In this view of the matter, I find merit in the present revision petition and as such, the same is hereby allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) May 10, 2011. Judge vinod* - 3-