Civil Revision No. 4483 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4483 of 2009 Date of decision 15.7.2011. Ashok Kumar Puri ...... Petitioner . versus Arun Thaper ...... Respondent. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C.PURI Present : Shri Mohan Singh Chaudhary, Senior Advocate with Shri F.S.Virk, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Rampal, Advocate for the respondent. K.C.PURI . J. Ashok Kumar Puri petitioner has directed the present revision petition against the judgment dated 1.5.2009 passed by learned Appellate Authority, Ludhiana vide which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 10.5.2008 passed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana was dismissed. Briefly stated the case of the petitioner is that he is owner/landlord in respect of the demised premises wherein the respondent Civil Revision No. 4483 of 2009 2 is a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs.2500/- excluding the house tax, water charges and electricity charges, in respect of the property consisting of one room, kitchen, common bath room on the first floor of the above said property. It is averred by the petitioner that earlier Lajpat Rai Puri was the owner/landlord of the demised premises and after his death on 18.1.1997 the petitioner has become owner/landlord of the premises in dispute. The petitioner has pleaded that the respondent has not paid the rent @ Rs.2500/- per month w.e.f. 1.4.1997 along with house tax, water charges and electricity charges while the respondent had paid the rent to Lajpat Rai Puri until 31.1.1997. The petitioner requires the premises in question for his bona fide requirement for his son namely Monu Puri and the demised premises are said to be required for the residence of his son on the ground that he is going to be married very shortly. Notice of the petition was given to the respondent, who put in appearance and filed his written statement wherein he has raised preliminary objections that the petitioner is neither the owner nor landlord of the property and is stranger to the respondent. According to the respondent, Lajpat Rai Puri was the owner of the property and the respondent had taken one room, one store, bathroom, latrine from Lajpat Rai Puri at a monthly rent of Rs.200/- on 7.1.1997 and the time of said commencement of tenancy an amount of Rs.15,000/- is alleged to have been paid by the respondent to Lajpat Rai Puri by way of Pagri, which was adjustable in future rent as Lajpat Rai Puri had to go abroad. In this way, it is averred that no rent is due from him and the petition is not maintainable. It is averred that the petitioner has no concern with the property in dispute nor with Lajpat Rai Civil Revision No. 4483 of 2009 3 Puri and that is the reason the petitioner has not disclosed as to how he jumped into the shoes of Lajpat Rai Puri. On merits also, similar pleas with regard to petitioner having no concern with the property in dispute have been raised by the respondent. Rate of rent as pleaded to the tune of Rs.2500/- per month has also been denied by the respondent who has contended that in fact he is tenant under Lajpat Rai Puri and there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He has however, admitted that Lajpat Rai Puri was the owner of the property but has denied that the petitioner has jumped into the shoes of Lajpat Rai Puri and has become landlord/owner of the property in dispute. While pleading further that the petitioner has no concern either with the property of Lajpat Rai Puri. With regard to ground of non-payment of rent, the respondent contended that at the time of commencement of tenancy, he paid an amount of Rs.15,000/- to the owner Lajpat Rai Puri which was adjustable to the rent of the premises and the rate of rent was only Rs.200/- per month and not Rs.2500/- per month as alleged by the petitioner. Similarly with regard to non-payment of house tax, he has pleaded that here was no liability at all on his part to pay any such tax. As regards the ground of personal bona fide requirement is concerned the respondent while denying the said ground as well as pleaded that petitioner is owner of big house at Janakpuri and has vacated various properties and the allegation pleaded by the petitioner in this regard is totally wrong and denied. According to him, the petitioner and his son have sufficient accommodation at Janakpuri. Thus denying all allegations and even disputing the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the respondent has Civil Revision No. 4483 of 2009 4 made a prayer for dismissal of the petition. In replication, the petitioner reiterated his version while denying and controverting the pleas taken by the respondent. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- 1) Whether the respondent is liable to be evicted from the property in dispute? OPP 2) Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR 3) Relief. In order to prove his case, the petitioner examined AW-1 Om Parkash, AW-2 Harinder Pal Puri and he himself appeared as AW-3. When the case was fixed for cross examination of all the said three AWs, the respondent became absent as a result of which he was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 26.4.2006 and thereafter petitioner closed his evidence. The learned Rent Controller after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner dismissed the petition vide order dated 10.5.2008. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid order of learned Rent Controller, the petitioner has preferred the appeal before learned Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, who also dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 1.5.2009. Still feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid order and judgment the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case with their able assistance. Civil Revision No. 4483 of 2009 5 The claim of the petitioner is on the basis of Will dated 18.12.1996 alleged to be executed by the original owner Lajpat Rai Puri. Both the Courts below have observed that in the petition, the petitioner has not mentioned as to how he has become landlord over the suit property. The Will has not been pleaded in the petition. In the petition, it has been mentioned that he has stepped into the shoes of Lajpat Rai Puri, but how he has stepped into the shoes of Lajpat Rai Puri has not been mentioned. There is concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below that Will is a suspicious document and that without arraying the natural legal heirs of Lajpat Rai Puri, reliance cannot be placed on the alleged Will. So, that being a finding of fact cannot be interfered in the revision petition. Otherwise also, the Appellate Authority has observed that the petitioner has failed to prove the bona fide necessity. So, no ground for interference in the present petition is made out. Consequently, there is no merit in the revision petition, the same stands dismissed. 20. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. ( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE July 15, 2011 sv