IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5003 of 1991 Date of decision:28.04.2009 Balwinder Singh ...Petitioner versus Smt. Vidya ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Prashant Vashist, Advocate for Mr. V.K. Jain, Senior Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Dinarpur, Advocate for the respondent. ----- 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 ? K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. Mr. Prashant Vashist, Advocate is present in Court and seeks for time by saying that his senior counsel Mr.V.K.Jain, Advocate is not ready. The matter pertains to a rent petition filed on 15.10.1990 before the Rent Controller, Kurukshetra and the Civil Revision is pending since 1991. Having regard to the long pendency of the case, I reject the plea and deem it appropriate to dispose of the case on merits on perusal of the records. 2. The rent petition had been filed under Section 13 of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 seeking for ejectment of the tenant on three grounds namely (i) Personal necessity of the landlord for the use of the property by the son; (ii) Change of user of Civil Revision No.5003 of 1991 - 2 - property that shop which was let for non-residential purpose has been changed for residential purpose; and (iii) Non-payment of rent from 01.12.1983 to 30.11.1986 at the rate of Rs.150/- per month plus house tax amounting to Rs.540/- with interest and cost. The ground that sustained the order of eviction was only the issue regarding non-payment of rent in the manner contended by the landlord but the other two grounds of eviction were rejected both by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority. 3. The contention of the tenant had been that he was paying the rent only to the petitioner's husband Gainda Ram and there was no landlord tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondent and the two Courts below referred to the fact that the document purchased had been in the name of the petitioner and that the petitioner as well as the husband were both examined as AW-1 and AW- 2 to state about the subsisting relationship as landlord and tenant and that the tenant knew that the amounts were for some time received by the husband only on behalf of his wife. The Court found from the evidence that all the witnesses and the document of purchase that stood in the name of the landlord to be offering the best of supporting evidence that the landlord tenant relationship had been established. On the issue relating to payment of rent the tenant relied on rent receipt, a copy of which was marked as R-1. The Courts below had given at least three reasons as to why the document could not be believed: (1) It was not confronted either to AW-1 or AW-2 when they were in the witness box. (2) The original receipt itself was not produced and no reason had been Civil Revision No.5003 of 1991 - 3 - given for production of only a photocopy; and (3) It was not even filed along with written statement. The Appellate Court had rendered an observation that the document itself looked suspicious. When the receipt which the tenant had relied on to show the discharge of liability was not established and there was a clear finding that the rent had not been paid within 15 days after the expiry of time which was fixed in the agreement of tenancy or within a period of 15 days of the first hearing of the application for ejectment after due service, the consequence was that the tenant was liable for ejectment. The tenant had brought himself to an unenviable situation that he now faces by denying the jural relationship with the landlord and further setting up a false receipt of payment of rent which was rejected. 4. There is no scope for interference in the revision. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 28.04.2009 sanjeev