Civil Revision No.3818 of 2011(O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:07.07.2011 Dev Raj & anr. ....petitioners Versus Martha Bawa @ Alias Bawa .....respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Rajiv Joshi, Advocate for the petitioners *** RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.(ORAL): C.M. No.15217-CII of 2011 Civil Misc.application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CM disposed of. Civil Revision No.3818 of 2011 This is tenants' revision petition, challenging the impugned order dated 25.04.2011, whereby his application to grant him leave, to contest the petition filed under Section 13 B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 by respondent-landlord, was declined and consequently he was directed to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises within two months from the date of aforesaid order. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has vehemently argued that in his application for leave to contest, the petitioner has raised many triable issues including that the landlord was not the Civil Revision No.3818 of 2011(O & M) 2 owner of the suit property and therefore the leave should not have been declined to him and therefore the impugned order is liable to be quashed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order. The relevant observations of the Rent Controller read as follows: “After giving my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the file very carefully, I am of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the contentions raised by learned counsel for respondents applicants. Coming to the contention of learned counsel for respondents/applicants that sale deed dated 28.03.2005 does not pertain to the disputed property. The said contention is utterly devoid of any merit. The perusal of sale deed reveals that petitioner-Martha Bawa @ Alias Bawa purchased the house comprised in khata/khatauni No.602/655, 603/656, khasras No.1636, 1640 for valuable consideration of Rs.2 lacs from Neelam Prabha and others. The respondent has taken the plea that he was inducted as tenant in the disputed property by one Gugga Ram. The respondent has also placed on the file copy of suit for permanent injunction filed by him against said Gugga Ram @ Jacob Masih pertaining to house No.145, Gali No.13, Sant Nagar, Jalandhar. By way of present petition, petitioner has sought the relief of ejectment against respondents qua the said house. Moreover, Gugga Ram had taken a categorical plea in the written statement filed in the Civil Revision No.3818 of 2011(O & M) 3 above mentioned suit for permanent injunction, wherein, he averred that portion of ground floor of the suit property was rented out by Smt.Ailas @ Martha Bawa to to the husband of plaintiff-Kamlesh @ Rs.2200/- per month. Thereafter, Smt.Ailas @ Martha Bawa went to Canada and in her absence, he was receiving the rent from the husband of plaintiff periodically till June 2007. Gugga Ram categorically denied that he rented out the disputed property to respondent-Kamlesh @ Rs.600/- per month. It needs no reiteration that disputed property, which is part of house No. 145 was purchased by petitioner-Martha Bawa @ Ailas Bawa vide sale deed dated 28.03.2005. Thus, petitioner was owner of the disputed property for more than five years at the time of filing of the present petition on 24.05.2010. Thus, the contention of learned counsel for respondents/applicants that petitioner was not owner of the disputed property cannot be accepted being untenable.” There is nothing on record on the basis of which the aforesaid findings of the Rent Controller can be held to be perverse. Thus, this Court is not inclined to invoke its revisional jurisdiction in the present case. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 07.07.2011 neenu