CR No.3195 of 2011 (O&M) -1- ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.3195 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:16.05.2011. Baj Singh ...Petitioner Versus Joginder Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mrs. Jaspal Kaur Gurna, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. The dispute in this case is between the real two brothers in respect of two rooms which were alleged to have been rented out by one brother (Joginder Singh) to another brother (Baj Singh) @ `600/- per month, who paid the rent up to September, 2000 but stopped paying the rent thereafter which was accumulated to the tune of `21,000/- from October, 2000 to August, 2003 and had impaired the value and utility of the demised premises by changing the roof of the rooms by placing one lintel on the rooms of the landlord as well as on the rooms of the tenant and by constructing Verandah in the open space of the landlord without his written consent. The case set up by the landlord is that property shown as EFDK in the site plan was purchased by all the four brothers, namely, Joginder Singh, Baj Singh, Ajit Singh and Gulzar Singh in equal shares, but the sale deed was registered in favour of Joginder Singh and Baj Singh. Both the other brothers, namely, Ajit Singh and Gulzar Singh filed a Civil Suit for declaration that they are also owners of the said property and in that suit, they were declared owners of the said property to the extent of ¼ share each on the basis of which at point CR No.3195 of 2011 (O&M) -2- ***** G in the site plan, two rooms fell to the share of the landlord Joginder Singh, one room and one store towards eastern side went to the share of the tenant Baj Singh and the remaining portion shown at point ABCD came to the share of Ajit Singh and Gulzar Singh. The landlord had alleged that he had started living in other Mohalla and since his brother Baj Singh was in the need of two rooms, therefore, he took his two rooms on rent @ `600/- per month and started residing there. As they were real brothers, therefore, rent note was not executed and the tenancy was oral. It is alleged that the tenant had paid the rent up to September, 2000 but thereafter, he stopped paying the rent and had also impaired the value and utility of the demised premises. In reply, the tenant set up his case by averring that a consent decree was suffered in favour of Ajit Singh and Gulzar Singh, but the same was suffered under a family settlement in between the parties. It was alleged that the suit property was purchased in the year 1982 and a family settlement was arrived at between the parties in the year 1986 in the presence of sisters of the parties, namely, Simran Kaur, Samitar Kaur and Bimal Kuar along with other close relatives in which it was settled that the landlord and the tenant shall suffer a consent decree in favour of their other two brothers, namely, Ajit Singh and Gulzar Singh and the landlord shall hand over the vacant possession of his share in favour of the tenant and in pursuance of which a sum of `27,000/- was received by the landlord from the tenant for relinquishing all his legal rights in favour of the tenant and as such the tenant became owner in possession of ½ share of total property and the remaining ½ share was left with other two brothers. Thus, it was alleged that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and both the parties led their respective oral as well as documentary evidence. The learned Rent Controller had found that the tenant was in arrears of rent and had raised construction without permission of the landlord causing material impairment and eventually, vide order dated 06.11.2009, ordered eviction of the tenant from the demised premises. The learned Appellate Authority also maintained the order of eviction while observing that it is proved on record that the landlord had rented CR No.3195 of 2011 (O&M) -3- ***** out his ¼ share to the tenant in the year 1982 @ `600/- per month regarding which the tenant paid the rent up to September, 2000 and was in arrears of rent w.e.f. October, 2000 to August, 2003, but instead of tendering the rent he appeared in the Court and denied relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was also held that the tenant had failed to prove and produce on record any document of the purchase of the share of his brother/landlord for a sum of `27,000/- as no property more than the value of `100/- can be transferred without a registered document. In the absence of any evidence on record on behalf of the tenant proving his ownership over the demised premises and the fact that he did not tender the rent which was found to be due by the Courts below, there is no error on the part of the Courts below in passing the order of his eviction. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the sisters had deposed about the transaction for a sum of `27,000/- in respect of the demised premises, but their oral evidence is not suffice to prove transfer of immovable property of more than `100/- especially when it is denied by the landlord who had proved the tenant to be in arrears of rent. If the tenant had purchased the property, as alleged, there was no question of him paying any rent but the Courts below have found that the tenant was in arrears of rent. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any error in the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Courts below and as such, the impugned orders of eviction of the tenant are upheld and the revision petition is hereby dismissed in limine. No costs. May 16, 2011. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge