C.R. No. 2462 of 2010 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 2462 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 30.6.2010 Atma Ram .......... Petitioner Versus Sadhu Ram ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Alok Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) C.M. No. 9259-CII of 2010 For the reasons stated in the application, C.M. is allowed, delay of 380 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. C.M. No. 9260-CII of 2010 For the reasons stated in the application, C.M. is allowed, delay of 2 days in filing the appeal is condoned. C . R. No. 2462 of 2010 This revision petition by the petitioner is directed against the order dated 3.10.2009, passed by the learned Appellate Authority,Rohtak, vide which petition filed by the petitioner under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 was ordered to be dismissed. The petitioner sought eviction of the respondent on the plea, that respondent was inducted as tenant on a monthly C.R. No. 2462 of 2010 -2- rent of Rs. 300/- (Rupees three hundred only) and he was liable to be evicted on account of non-payment of rent since 1.10.1991. The second ground for eviction of the respondent was, that he demolished a part of the Northern and Southern walls, two rooms and stair case of the house and tried to reconstruct the house, therefore, impaired the value and utility of the property. The other ground taken was, that the house was in dilapidated condition, therefore, not fit for human habitation. The petition was contested, wherein the respondent denied the relationship of landlord and tenant, and claimed himself to be owner in possession of the suit property. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues :- “1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to hand over the vacant possession of disputed house as alleged?OPP 2. Whether the respondent is liable to be evicted from the house / property?OPP 3. Whether the petitioner has no cause of action?OPR 4. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form?OPR 5. Whether the petitioner has no locus-standi to file the present petition?OPR C.R. No. 2462 of 2010 -3- 6. Whether the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to try and decide this petition?OPR 7. Relief.” On appreciation of evidence, the learned Rent Controller as well as the learned Appellate Authority recorded a concurrent finding of fact, that the petitioner was not entitled to vacant possession of the suit property, as there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The learned Courts below held, that possession of the respondent can be that of unauthorised occupant, as the petitioner failed to prove the tenancy. The evidence led by the petitioner was held to be discrepant regarding relationship of landlord and tenant. The learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority held, that the authorities under the Rent Act did not have the jurisdiction to entertain and try the petition and accordingly dismissed the eviction petition. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently contended, that the findings recorded by the learned Courts below cannot be sustained, as in the previous litigation ownership of the petitioner was proved. The evidence was led showing, that oral tenancy was created in favour of the respondent. The learned Courts below, therefore, misread the evidence, to record a finding that the petitioner had failed to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant C.R. No. 2462 of 2010 -4- between the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contended, that the learned Rent Controller as well as the learned Appellate Authority have failed to take note of the composite effect of the evidence led to prove the case as set up, therefore, the findings recorded by the learned Courts below were perverse. On consideration, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not in dispute that previously the petitioner had filed a suit for injunction restraining the respondent from raising construction, however, in that suit an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was moved, which was dismissed and after the appeal was dismissed, the suit was withdrawn by the petitioner. It may also be noticed, that respondent had also filed a suit seeking to restrain the petitioner herein from interfering in possession and raising construction, but he also failed in the said suit, the learned trial Court held, that the possession of the respondent over the house was illegal and that of a trespasser and had further held, that respondent being not owner could not raise construction thereon. The appeal filed was also dismissed. The documentary evidence brought on record by the petitioner showed that though the property was shown to be under the ownership of the mother of the petitioner, C.R. No. 2462 of 2010 -5- however, tenancy of the respondent was not recorded. The learned Courts below found, that the evidence led by the petitioner was discrepant, therefore, could not be believed to hold, that there exists the relationship of landlord and tenant. The concurrent finding of fact recorded by the learned Courts below on appreciation of evidence cannot be interfered with, unless it is shown to be perverse or outcome of misreading of evidence, which is not the case of the petitioner in this case. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Courts below have recorded a finding of fact, that relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was not proved. It cannot be said that the findings recorded by the learned Courts below is not based on composite reading of the evidence, as alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. No ground is made out for interference with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned Courts below. Finding no merit, this revision petition is ordered to be dismissed, but with no order as to costs. 30.6.2010 (VINOD K. SHARMA) 'sp' JUDGE