CR No.267 of 2011 (O&M) -1- ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.267 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:17.02.2011. Ashok Kumar ...Petitioner Versus Krishan Gau Shala Regd., Nakodar ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The tenant is in revision against the orders of the Courts below by which he has been ordered to vacate the shop No.9 (demised premises), situated at Nakodar, District Jalandhar which was allegedly let out by the landlord to him @ `1,500/- per month by executing a rent note on 30.11.2000. The eviction was sought on the ground of non-payment of rent from 01.04.2001 till the filing of the eviction petition and for diminishing the value and utility of the demised premises. The tenant denied his relationship with the landlord. The rent note was called a fabricated document and even the landlord was asked to prove his ownership. After filing of the rejoinder, following issues were framed by the learned Rent Controller: - “1. Whether there exists relationship of landlord and tenant?(OPA). 2. Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent for the period of 01.04.2001 till filing of application? (OPA). 3. Whether the respondent is deteriorating the value and utility of the suit property?(OPA). 4. Whether the applicant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present petition? (OPR). 5. Whether the applicant is estopped to file the CR No.267 of 2011 (O&M) -2- ***** present application? (OPR) 6. Relief.” The landlord examined Raj Kumar Sharma as AW1, Ashok Kumar as AW-2, Davinder Pal as AW3, whereas the tenant examined himself as RW1, Kirandeep Dhir as RW2, Raman Kumar as RW3 and tendered jamabandis for the year 1998-99 as Ex.R1 & Ex.R2, copy of aks-shizra as Ex.R3, report of the Local Commissioner as Ex.R4 and Inderjit Singh, Naib Tehsildar was examined as Court witness. Both the Courts below had found that main controversy is with regard to the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as a result of which the tenant had not paid the rent. The learned Rent Controller had found that rent deed (Ex.A2) is admittedly signed by the tenant and both the witnesses. Had there been any fraud as alleged by the tenant, he would have made a complaint to the police or some civil administration but in the absence of such a recourse having been adopted by the tenant, a strong inference was drawn in favour of the due execution of Ex.A2. Moreover, application (Ex.A5) is admittedly signed by the tenant in which he has stated that he has taken one shop from Krishan Gaushala and would abide by the terms and conditions of Gaushala Trust. In further corroboration to the fact that the demised premised is owned by the landlord it was observed that “there are four shops of Gau Shala adjoining the shop in question, one is occupied by Brij Lal Kulcha Wala and another one is barbar shop whereas another shop was possessed by Anil Kavari. RW-3 Raman Kumar have also admitted that there are five shops on one line and four shops on the other side of the Gau Shala but he cannot tell who is occupying these shops being its tenant. Meaning thereby both these witnesses have impliedly admitted the fact that all the shops have been given by Gau Shala on rent and these were occupied by the tenants. When the Gau Shala has control over the other shops which clearly infers the fact that Gau Shala is also having control over the shop in question”. The learned Rent Controller further observed that “even if the property falls in the Khasra No.513 even then the respondent cannot derive any benefit from the same. The witnesses examined by the petitioner as AW-1, AW-2 and AW-3 in one voice have proved the Trust Deed Ex.A1 and the Rent Deed Ex.A-2 and application moved by the respondent before the President of the petitioner as Ex.A-5. Thus, there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties”. After establishing the relationship of CR No.267 of 2011 (O&M) -3- ***** landlord and tenant, the learned Rent Controller had found that the tenant was in arrears of 12 months' rent amounting to `18,000/- which was not paid, therefore, his ejectment was ordered. Although it is well settled that in a case where the tenant denies the relationship of landlord and tenant, the Rent Controller is neither obliged to assess provisional rent nor give time to the tenant to make the payment of arrears of rent, but still the learned Rent Controller in this case had given two months' time to the tenant to make payment of the arrears of rent in order to avoid eviction order. However, the amount was not paid by the tenant and an appeal was filed on the ground that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant. The learned Appellate Authority discussed the entire oral as well as documentary evidence again and observed that the main stress of the learned counsel for the tenant was upon the ownership of the property in dispute, whether it belongs to Central Government or defence department or to the Municipal Committee, Nakodar, whereas in a matter of ejectment, the Court is only obliged to decide whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was observed by the learned Appellate Authority that there is no error in the order of the learned Rent Controller in appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence to hold that the parties have relationship of landlord and tenant and that the rent deed (Ex.A2) was duly executed by the tenant and there was no element of fraud. Still aggrieved against the concurrent finding recorded in this regard, the present revision petition has been filed in which learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant has tried to read the oral as well as documentary evidence once again without referring to any error in the judgment occasioned due to misreading of evidence. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner in detail, but I have not found any error in the impugned orders which are based upon due appreciation of evidence available on record. Hence, the present revision petition is found to be without any merit and is, thus, dismissed in limine. No costs. February 17, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE