The requirement for valid proof of ownership and possession under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, and the significance of documentary evidence in property disputes.

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

1. The present regular second appeal has been filed by the defendant-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 27.07.2015 passed by the Additional District Judge, Rupnagar vide which the judgment and decree dated 25.11.2011 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Anandpur Sahib in Civil Suit No.154 dated 29.07.2003 has been set aside and the suit of plaintiffs-respondents for declaration that they are owners and are entitled to the possession of the suit property by way of demolition of construction and structure found at the site, has been decreed.

2. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. The plaintiffs-respondents were owners of the property in dispute comprised in Khewat No.514, Khatoni No. 620, Khasra no. 547(3-6) situated in Village Hambewal, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar. The plaintiffs purchased the land measuring 7 Marlas including the suit property being 1/9 share out of the land measuring 3 Kanals 6 Marlas comprised in Khewat No. 514, Khatoni No. 620, Khasra No. 547(3-6) vide registered sale deed dated 24.04.2003 executed by Parshotam, son of Roda. Previously, Ram Parkash, son of Beli Ram, father of respondent No.1 and husband of plaintiff-respondent No.2, had taken the site in dispute on lease from Basant Ram, Fattu Ram and Pohlo, sons of Roda Ram, residents of Village Hambewal, vide lease dated 19.11.1953. The period of lease dated 19.11.1953 was fixed for six years. On expiry of lease period, another lease deed dated 14.12.1959 was executed by Basant Ram, Fattu Ram and Pohlo Ram in favour of Ram Parkash and other persons. After execution of lease deed, Ram Parkash raised construction in the suit property. Ram Parkash along with his family members resided in the suit property continuously till his death in the year 1971. After his death, his wife Raj Rani and son Shashi Kumar had been residing in the suit property. The defendant-appellant took the disputed property on rent at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month as tenant of plaintiff-respondent No.2, Smt. Raj Rani but the defendant-appellant had not paid the rent to her with effect from 01.04.1992. The plaintiffs-respondents had been paying the electricity bills. However, on account of non-payment of rent and certain amount of electricity bill, the meter connection was disconnected by the electricity department. The condition of the disputed construction had deteriorated. The defendant-appellant had shifted to her newly constructed double storeyed house and locked the disputed construction. Plaintiff-respondent No.2 filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for ejectment of the defendant-appellant from the disputed property. In the written statement, the defendant-appellant disclaimed the title of ownership of the plaintiffs-respondents. The Rent Controller, Anandpur Sahib vide order dated 13.03.2003 directed the parties to get their title determined from the Civil Court. The plaintiffs-respondents requested the defendant-appellant to solve the dispute but she did not pay any heed. Consequently, the plaintiffs-respondents filed the suit. Upon notice, the defendant-appellant appeared and filed written statement. It was inter alia pleaded that suit was not maintainable and the same was barred by non-joinder of parties. On merits, it was submitted that the defendant-appellant was owner in possession of the suit property by way of oral exchange between the defendant-appellant and Mangal Singh in lieu of sale deed dated 21.06.1995. It was further submitted that the plaintiffs-respondents were having possession being Chokotedar over the site mentioned in the site plan on the southern side of the house of the defendant-appellant. In fact, the defendant-appellant and her husband were earlier the Chokotedars of Mangal Singh and others, the joint owners of the said khasra number of the land for more than 35 years. T