Civil Revision No.4260 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4260 of 2008 Date of decision:03.02.2010. S. Palpinder Singh Sandhu ...Petitioner Versus Dr. Sarita Sharma ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. M.L.Sarin, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Himani Sarin, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. N.K.Banka, Advocate, for Mr. Vishal Goel, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The petitioner – landlord (hereinafter referred to as `the petitioner herein') had filed a plea for ejectment of the respondent – tenant (hereinafter referred to as `the respondent herein') from the tenanted premises, in terms of the provisions of Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). The plea did not find favour with the learned Rent Controller, which held that the petitioner herein had not been able to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant with the respondent herein. In response to the plea raised by the petitioner herein that he is an NRI and that he wants to come back to India and further that he requires the tenanted premises for his personal use and occupation had been contested by the respondent herein by raising a plea that there is no relationship of tenant and landlord and that it Civil Revision No.4260 of 2008 -2- was, in fact, the mother of the petitioner herein who had rented out the tenanted premise to the husband of the respondent herein. Though the learned Rent Controller upheld the averment that the petitioner herein is an NRI and that “it is clear that the applicant had and has domain and control over the building constructed on plot Nos.52 and 52 and he shall be deemed as owner of property constructed on plots bearing No.52 and 53”, it was held that the petitioner had not been able to prove that there is relationship of landlord-tenant between them. The petitioner-landlord is in revision against it. The respondent had raised a precise plea that it was her husband Dr. Kamaljit Singh who had obtained the tenanted premises on rent from the mother of the petitioner. The learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner-landlord, argued that the learned Rent Controller had undertaken a virtual of hairsplitting exercise by ignoring from consideration the fact that the respondent herein is, in any case, the wife of Dr. Kamaljit Singh, who (Dr. Kamaljit Singh) had not opted to enter the witness box to own the averment aforementioned up. It was also argued that there is complete want of evidence on the part of the respondent – tenant to prove that her husband had ever paid rent to the mother of the petitioner – landlord. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent-tenant, reiterated the correctness of the line of reasoning adopted by the learned Rent Controller. Civil Revision No.4260 of 2008 -3- It being presently the common ground that the fate of the controversy would turn upon the finding about the relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties, the present adjudicatory exercise shall be confined to that aspect only. That the respondent is running a clinic in the tenanted premises, is apparent from the photographs thereof, which (photographs) were conceded by none else other than the respondent to be that of herself. In those photographs, she had been shown sitting in the clinic in the company of certain female patients. Further, Dr. Kamaljit Singh, husband of the respondent- tenant, did not enter the witness box to own up the averment made by the respondent-wife that he had obtained the tenanted premises on rent from the mother of the petitioner herein. By the very nature of things, Dr. Kamaljit Singh was the best circumstanced to own up the averment made by none else or other than his wife. It also requires pointed notice that the house tax record available on the record notices the identity of the premises as Sharma Polyclinic. Though the name of the respondent is not recorded in the house tax record as a tenant, it cannot be wished away that she herself appears in the photographs in the company of certain female patients. This aspect is to be appreciated in view of the fact that there is a categorical finding of fact by the learned Rent Controller that it is the petitioner herein who has been proved to be owner of the tenanted premises. The income tax returns filed by the husband of the Civil Revision No.4260 of 2008 -4- respondent were placed on record. These do indicate that he had been paying the amount recorded therein as rent. However, the income tax returns do not, at all, indicate the rate at which the rent was being paid. In the light of aforementioned discussion, it is apparent that the learned Rent Controller did not appreciate the evidence in the proper perspective. The finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller qua want of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, shall stand set aside. It is held under the relevant issue that the petitioner herein has been able to prove the relationship aforementioned. The petition shall stand allowed. The impugned order dated 24.12.2007 shall stand set aside. The petition filed by the petitioner herein shall stand allowed. The respondent – tenant shall have two months' time from today to vacate the premises. February 03, 2010 (S.D.ANAND) vinod* JUDGE