Civil Revision No. 6940 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6940 of 2009 Date of decision: 17.5.2010 Inder Mohan Singh ...Petitioner Versus Surjit Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Advocate for the respondents. S.D.ANAND, J. The respondent-landlord filed a petition to obtain eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the tenanted premises on an averment that the latter had not paid the agreed rent with effect from 1.1.2001 and that he has ceased to occupy the premises with effect from January, 2001. The petitioner-tenant denied the very existence of relationship of the landlord-tenant between him and the respondent- landlord and pleaded that he was in possession of the tenanted premises only as a licencee on account of his close relationship with the latter. In support of that averment, it was pleaded that the Civil Revision No. 6940 of 2009 -2- **** respondent-landlord had given an affidavit before the concerned authorities to the effect that no rent was payable by the petitioner- tenant. The learned Rent Controller negatived the ejectment plea by holding that the relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties was not proved. with the non establishment of relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties, those issues were decided against the respondent-landlord. The learned Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and held that there is existence of relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties, that the petitioner-tenant is liable to ejectment from the tenanted premises inasmuch as he had not paid up the averred arrears of rent and further there is evidence that the petitioner-tenant has ceased to occupy the tenanted premises for the last about three years. The petitioner-tenant is in revision against it. Learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant argued that the finding recorded by the learned Appellate Authority is not relate-able to any material obtaining on the file and further that the Appellate Authority has incorrectly recorded a finding about there being relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties. The other part of the finding was also criticised as being inappropriate. It would be relevant to notice, at the very out set, that the respondent-landlord had made a precise averment about there being relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties. It is that Civil Revision No. 6940 of 2009 -3- **** relationship which was denied in the course of the written statement filed by the petitioner-tenant who averred (in preliminary objection thereof) that “the petitioner put the respondent in the premises in question due to love and affection having close relationship”. In the course of the re-joinder, the respondent-landlord had offered in the written statement and reiterated a plain denial of the averment that there is any relationship between him and the petitioner-tenant. Insofar as the respondent-landlord is concerned, he reiterated that the denial of any relationship with the petitioner-tenant by his deposition on oath. Insofar as the petitioner-tenant is concerned, he claimed to be a nephew of respondent-landlord but he was not able to indicate how exactly is he related to the respondent- landlord. Even in the course of the affidavit Ex. RX/1 (which was tendered into evidence in lieu of examination-in-chief), all that he averred was that the petitioner had put into possession (in the premises under reference) by the respondent-landlord on account of close relationship inter-se. (“Infact due to close relations interse the parties and out of love and affection the respondent was put in actual physical possession of the shop in question”) However, he conspicuously refrained from indicating how exactly was he related to respondent-landlord. In the context of the plain denial of any such relationship by the petitioner-tenant, the onus lay heavily upon the respondent-landlord to indicate the averred close relationship which he had not been able to do so in this case. Insofar as the contents of Mark 'A' are concerned, those Civil Revision No. 6940 of 2009 -4- **** cannot be taken into consideration as that document was not properly proved at the trial. Insofar as the respondent-landlord is concerned, he did concede having given an affidavit before the concerned authorities but he no where owned up that affidavit Mark 'A' had been sworn by him. If the petitioner-tenant was so inclined, it was for him to summon the competent authority which had attested that affidavit. The person, who allegedly identified the respondent- landlord at the time of attestation was also not examined at the trial. The relationship alleged by the petitioner-tenant is not borne out even from the contents of the affidavit. Purported deponent Surjit Singh has been shown therein as a son of Hem Singh; whereas petitioner-tenant Inder Mohan Singh is recorded therein as son of Sh. Jasbir Singh. There is not even an iota of evidence to the effect that Jasbir Singh aforementioned is real or cousin brother of the respondent-landlord. In the context of the plain denial of relationship, the onus was essentially upon the petitioner-tenant to prove the existence of the averred close relationship between him and the respondent-landlord he had not been able to discharge the onus in the relevant behalf. In view of the above noticed facts, I have no reservation in upholding the finding recorded by the learned Appellate Authority to the effect that not relationship between the parties has been proved and that it follows therefrom that the petitioner-tenant had been put into possession in the premises under reference by the respondent-landlord as a tenant. Civil Revision No. 6940 of 2009 -5- **** The refrain, on the part of the petitioner-tenant in paying up the claimed arrears, assumes added importance in view of the above finding. As the petitioner-tenant did not pay up the arrears, he is liable to be evicted from the premises under his tenancy. Insofar as the other count, upon which the ejectment had been applied for, is concerned, there also the finding recorded by the learned Appellate Authority deserves to be affirmed. Finding of fact recorded by the learned Appellate Authority is to the effect that the petitioner-tenant had himself conceded that his medicine shop is lying closed for the last three years. He also did not produce any account books or any other documentation which he may have been maintaining in the ordinary course of his business in order to prove that the medicine shop which he had opened in the premises under reference and for the opening of which the purported affidavit mark 'A' had been sworn by the respondent-landlord, remained in functional mode during the relevant period. This aspect is to be appreciated in the light of the fact that the petitioner-tenant had also conceded that he is running a saw mill for the last about three years. If a person claims to be running two businesses, it will be for him to prove that point as a fact. That could be best proved by production of the relevant accounts documentation of the business being allegedly rain in premises under reference. The petitioner-tenant had not produced that documentation on record. In that view of things, the finding recorded by the learned Appellate Authority shall stand upheld. Civil Revision No. 6940 of 2009 -6- **** In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. The petitioner shall have two months' time from today to vacate the premises aforementioned. May 17, 2010 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge