CR No.6931 of 2010 (O&M) -1- CR No.6932 of 2010 (O&M) ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) CR No.6931 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:03.03.2011. Rattan Chand and others ...Petitioners Versus Raghbir Singh ...Respondent (2) CR No.6932 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:03.03.2011. Surinder Singh and another ...Petitioners Versus Raghbir Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. R.S.Ghuman, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) This order shall dispose of two revision petitions bearing CR No.6931 of 2010 titled as `Rattan Chand and others Vs. Raghbir Singh' and CR No.6932 of 2010 titled as `Surinder Singh and another Vs. Raghbir Singh'. In both the cases, while deciding an application filed under Section 13B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short “the Act”], the applications filed by the tenants under Section 18A(5) of the Act have been dismissed by the learned Rent Controller. The main emphasis laid by learned counsel for the petitioner(s) to assail the finding of the learned Rent Controller is on the issue whether Raghbir Singh has proved himself to be the owner of the demised premises from the last 5 years before filing of the eviction petition as required under Section 13B of CR No.6931 of 2010 (O&M) -2- CR No.6932 of 2010 (O&M) ***** the Act. He has submitted that the entry in jamabandi is not a sufficient evidence to prove the ownership and for that matter leave to defend should have been granted as has been granted in the other cases of the same landlord against the tenants of the adjoining shops, in which full trial had taken place. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner(s) and perused the record. It is not in dispute that Raghbir Singh (landlord) had other tenants also on the land shown in the jamabandi as Khasra No.47//22/4. Two of the other tenants, namely, Dr. Manmeet Kaur and Gurnam Singh were earlier granted leave to defend by the learned Rent Controller to contest the application filed under Section 13B of the Act on the ground that Raghbir Singh is not the owner of the land much-less the demised premises but after trial they were ordered to be evicted. They filed two revision petitions before this Court, namely, CR No.2693 of 2010 titled as `Gurnam Singh Vs. Raghbir Singh' and CR No.2694 of 2010 titled as `Dr. Manmeet Kaur Vs. Raghbir Singh' in which again the impugned order passed by the learned Rent Controller with regard to eviction of the tenants was challenged on the ground that Raghbir Singh is not proved to be the owner of the property in dispute. However, those revision petitions have been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 24.09.2010 holding that Raghbir Singh was the landlord and owner of the property in dispute. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has submitted that the entry in the jamabandi has presumption of truth only which is open to rebuttal and the order passed in the earlier cases, namely, CR Nos.2693 & 2694 of 2010 would not operate as res judicata to the petitions herein filed in their individual right to challenge the applications filed under Section 13B of the Act. In this regard, there is no dispute that the jamabandi has a presumption of truth only which is open to rebuttal but in the absence of any rebuttal that presumption would take the place of proof. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has submitted that Municipal Council record would show that the property does not belong to the respondent Raghbir Singh. Be that as it may, once this Court has determined, even after the CR No.6931 of 2010 (O&M) -3- CR No.6932 of 2010 (O&M) ***** trial, that Raghbir Singh is the owner of the land on which the demised premises have been constructed and is the owner thereof, I do not find any reason to differ with the orders already passed by this Court as it would tantamount to passing of conflicting orders. Once Raghbir Singh is found to be owner and landlord of the demised premises, there is no reason to grant leave to defend to prolong the result of the eviction petition. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the present revision petitions and as such the same are hereby dismissed in limine, however, without any order as to costs. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of another connected case. March 03, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE