CR No.6275 of 2010 (O&M) -1- ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.6275 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:05.01.2011. Basant Lal Aggarwal ...Petitioner Versus Sri Ram Enterprises ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The landlord has come up in revision against the orders of the Courts below by which his petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 [for short “the Act”] seeking eviction of the respondent from property bearing No.707/9, situated on Old Railway Road, Gurgaon [for short “demised premises”] on the ground of material impairment of its value and utility and bona fide requirement, has been dismissed. In brief, the petitioner filed a petition claiming himself to be owner of the demised premises in which it is alleged that the respondent was inducted as a tenant @ `4,000/- per month with house tax @ 15% extra. The respondent allegedly was a habitual defaulter and had not paid the rent from March 1999 till the filing of the ejectment petition. Moreover, the petitioner required the demised premises for bona fide requirement to carry on his own business and had, thus, sought eviction of the respondent from the demised premises also on the ground of material impairment of its value and utility. In the reply, the respondent had denied the ownership of the petitioner over the demised premises. It was denied that number of the demised premises is 707/9, CR No.6275 of 2010 (O&M) -2- ****** rather it was alleged that correct number of the demised premises is 708/9. The relationship of landlord and tenant was also denied. It was claimed that M/s Kailash Chand Jatinder Kumar were the owners of the demised premises and the rent was being paid to them @ `250/- per month. On the pleadings of the parties, various issues were framed, out of which, issue No.4 was as to “whether the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition? The learned Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition on the ground that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Aggrieved against the order of the learned Rent Controller, the petitioner filed an appeal, which too met the same fate, as the learned Appellate Authority observed as under: - “12. It is pertinent to mention here that appellant- petitioner has placed on file photostat copy of notice Mark A issued by the office of Municipal Council, Gurgaon and on that basis the appellant submits that he is owner of the demised property No.707/9. The appellant has also placed on file the certified copy of sale deed. It is also to be noted as that both the documents relied upon by the appellant does not prove the ownership of the appellant of the property in question bearing No.707/9. The petitioner has placed on file the rent receipts Ex.PX and Ex.PY and these also do not prove the fact that the appellant is owner and the respondents are the tenant of the demised premises. It is also to be noted as that the appellant-petitioner have not placed on file any rent deed in order to establish that the appellant is the landlord and the respondents are tenant of the demised premises. It is also to be noted as that there is not reliable evidence produced by appellant to prove the fact that the respondents had made payment of the rent at any point of time. The rent receipts Ex.PX and CR No.6275 of 2010 (O&M) -3- ****** Ex.PY were produced in rebuttal evidence and have not been proved according to law.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the learned Courts below have erred in dismissing the eviction petition on the ground that the petitioner is neither owner nor landlord of the demised premises. It is submitted that there are two documents on record, i.e. Ex.PX and Ex.PY, which have been misread by the Courts below. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record with his assistance. The petitioner is claiming himself to be owner of the demised premises on the basis of sale deed mark RW1/C which has no reference to the demised premises. Moreover, the documents Ex.PX and Ex.PY have been produced by the petitioner in rebuttal evidence though these are the rent receipts. It is really surprising that the rent receipts are being produced by the landlord though the rent receipts should have been in possession of the tenant as the receipt is issued by the landlord to the tenant and is not retained by the landlord. Secondly, had it been a genuine rent receipt, the landlord would have produced it in his evidence when he was leading it in affirmative and would not have been produced it by way of rebuttal. From these rent receipts, it is not clear that these have been ever signed by the tenant. In view of the fact that the petitioner has miserably failed to prove that he is the landlord even if he is not owner of the demised premises, therefore, he had no right to maintain the eviction petition against the respondent. No other point has been raised. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and as such, the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. January 05, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE