CR No.1149 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CR No.1149 of 2009 Date of decision March 3, 2009 Bhajan Lal ....... Petitioner Versus Lachman Dass ........Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Satinder Khanna, Advocate for the petitioner. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? No K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The revision petitioner is a tenant who was ordered to be evicted by the Appellate Authority. Initially the petition for eviction filed by the landlord was dismissed, upholding the contention of the tenant that his wife was the owner of the property having purchased the property from a person who was the true owner. The landlord filed replication setting up a case that he was not merely the landlord entitled to receive rent but he was also the owner of the premises. The Rent Controller accepted the defence and dismissed the petition. The Appellate Authority, however, reversed the finding and went on to decide also on the aspect of whether the landlord so described was owner of the property and whether the purchase by the tenant's wife in respect of the property from yet another person was indeed the owner. The Appellate Authority also considered the fact that the tenant had in an earlier round of litigation admitted the petitioner who had filed the petition for eviction as his landlord CR No.1149 of 2009 2 and he had also admitted his liability to pay rent to him. The Appellate Authority found this to be sufficient ground to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant and ordered eviction. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner denies his status as a tenant and contends that the admission of the status of the landlord and his liability to pay rent was wrought out by practice of fraud and he would not be bound by the same. In my view a person of full age of understanding who goes through a transaction secures the benefit of retention of his possession which he felt at one time to be threatened by a person claiming to be a landlord cannot at a later point of time resile from such a stand and contend that that person is no longer his landlord and the ownership in the property did not any longer vest with him. The Rent Controller or the authorities constituted under the Act shall have no reason to see the owner of the property is since the definition of the landlord in East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 is not with reference to the ownership of the building but with reference to the person to claim the right to receive rent. The right of the petitioner before the Court below to receive the rent on an admission by the tenant and treat himself as a landlord was fully protected and Section 116 of the Evidence Act was a complete answer to the contentions raised by the petitioner now who denied deny the entitlement of his landlord to obtain eviction. Any finding rendered either by the Rent Controller or by the Appellate Authority on the issue of title was wholly irrelevant and shall stand vacated. 3. The decision of the Appellate Authority is affirmed only to the finding that there existed a jural relationship of landlord and tenant and any other observations as regards title shall be taken as made without jurisdiction. The order of ejectment made by the Appellate Authority is confirmed with such modifications regarding the finding CR No.1149 of 2009 3 rendered by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority in that regard. 4. The Civil revision is, therefore, dismissed in the above terms. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 3, 2009 archana