CR No.1158 of 2011 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1158 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision:10.03.2011 Om Parkash and another . . .Petitioners Versus Sohan Kumar . . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.Pankaj Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Sajjan Malik, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J (ORAL) Notice of motion was issued in this case on 17.2.2011 with the following order: “Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner was inducted as tenant on 1.12.1977 by Brahm Datt Sharma. The demised premises was sold by him to the present landlord in the year 1981, who has now filed eviction petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent and Restriction Act, 1949 (for short ‘the Act’). Application filed by the petitioner under Section 18-A of the Act has been dismissed by the Court below and has ordered him to vacate the premises. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he was inducted as a tenant by a person, who was not an NRI, therefore, the eviction petition filed under Section 13-B of the Act by the subsequent purchaser is not maintainable. In this regard he has referred an CR No.1158 of 2011 (O&M) - 2 - order of this Court in CR No.4025 of 2006 titled as Smt. Bachan Kaur and others Vs. Kabal Singh and another decided on 29.9.2010, in which this question has been referred to the Larger Bench. Notice of motion. At this stage, Mr.Sajjan Singh Malik, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the landlord/respondent and states that the facts given in the revision petition are wrong. He prays for time to argue the case. On his request, adjourned to 10.3.2011 for arguments.” Today also, learned counsel for the petitioner opened his submissions by referring to the rent deed dated 1.12.1977, which was admittedly entered into between Baham Dutt Sharma and M/s Om Parkash wherein rent was fixed @ `400/- per month. He also produced before this Court document of the Estate Office dated 7.9.1981 in order to submit that the property was once owned by Baham Dutt Sharma, which has been transferred to present respondent/landlord. The sum and substance of his argument is that Baham Dutt Sharma was owner and landlord who has inducted the present petitioner and therefore, the present landlord (Sohan Lal) is not the person, who had let it out to him and as such this case requires to be kept in abeyance to await the decision in the case of CR No.4025 of 2006 titled as Smt. Bachan Kaur and others Vs. Kabal Singh and another decided on 29.9.2010. Reacting to his arguments, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the landlord, after becoming the owner of the property, had executed a fresh rent deed in favour of tenant Om Parkash on 17.12.1981 in respect of the demised premises @ rent of `450/- per month. He also pointed out that the stamp paper of this rent deed was purchased by Manohar Lal. It is alleged that this fact was in the knowledge of the tenant but he has very conveniently concealed this fact from this Court in order to obtain notice of motion. When this fact was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he has admitted the rent deed but at the same time he has stated that it was not brought to his notice by his client. CR No.1158 of 2011 (O&M) - 3 - Be that as it may, it is a fact that the petitioner has not come to this Court with clean hands and has tried to mislead. He has concealed the rent deed dated 17.12.1981 while furnishing rent deed dated 1.12.1977 only in order to take benefit of the order passed in CR No.4025 of 2006 titled as Smt. Bachan Kaur and others Vs. Kabal Singh and another decided on 29.9.2010 so that till the decision of that revision petition his tenancy could be protected. It is well settled that fraud and equity does not delve together. In this regard, I place reliance on the case titled as “S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs Versus Jagannath (dead) by LRs and others” AIR 1994 SC 853. Hence, in these circumstances, since the petitioner has made a deliberate attempt to mislead this Court, the present revision petition is dismissed with `50,000/- as costs. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) MARCH 10, 2011 JUDGE Vivek