Civil Revision No. 3715 of 2010 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3715 of 2010 Date of decision : 28.5.2010 Ram Ratti ....Petitioner Versus Notan Dass and another ......Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. R.K.Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner. S. D. ANAND, J. The petitioner-tenant is in revision against the concurrent finding upholding the entitlement of the respondent-landlord to evict the former from the premises under his tenancy. The finding recorded was that the respondent-landlord Notan Dass required the premises for personal bonafide necessity inasmuch as he is running his business in the adjacent shop and he requires the tenanted premises for expansion thereof. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the finding recorded by both the Forums deserve outright invalidation for the simple reason that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner-tenant and the respondent-landlord and that the petitioner-tenant is, infact, in occupation of the premises under reference as a lessee under the Punjab Waqf Board. The Civil Revision No. 3715 of 2010 -2- **** further grievance, in the context, is that both the Forums did not attach deserve importance to that plea. It is the own plea of the petitioner-tenant that she has been initially paying rent to respondent-landlord. The averment, in the context, is that she had been paying rent to Notan Dass under an impression of the latter being landlord of the premises aforementioned and the moment it came to her notice that the premises is owned by the Punjab Waqf Board, she started paying lease amount to the Board. Learned Rent Controller duly noticed that Ex. P12, a copy of the statement made by the petitioner-tenant in a Civil Suit wherein she had conceded being occupation of the premises a tenant under the respondent Notan Dass. Learned Appellate Authority also noticed that the respondent-landlord had filed a civil suit against the petitioner-tenant requiring the restraint of the latter from interfering in the possession of the former on the premises under reference. During the trial, the petitioner-tenant herein had filed a plea under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment of the written statement in order to be able to raise a plea therein that she was a tenant under the respondent-landlord (plaintiff therein) on the indicated rate of rent. On these facts, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller and negatived the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner in the context aforementioned. It is neither here nor there for the learned counsel for the Civil Revision No. 3715 of 2010 -3- **** petitioner to argue that the petitioner-tenant is, infact, in occupation of the premises as a lessee under the Punjab Waqf Board. There being no explanation, muchless plausible, on the part of the petitioner-tenant to explain the circumstances under which she had been paying rent to the respondent-landlord and also for want of any documented evidence to prove how exactly the relationship of lessor and lessee came about between the petitioner-tenant and the Punjab Waqf Board, the plea argued on behalf of the petitioner shall stand negatived. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. The petitioner- tenant shall have two months time from today to vacate the premises aforementioned. May 28, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE Civil Revision No. 3715 of 2010 -4- ****