The central legal point established is that the burden of proving the landlord-tenant relationship lies with the landlord, and the findings of the court must be based on proper appreciation of evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Surinder Gupta, J.

This is revision against order dated 06.03.2018 passed by learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar allowing ejectment petition filed by Guru Ravidass Welfare Society, Paragpur, Old Phagwara Road, Jalandhar (respondent) under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (later referred to as 'the Act') and ordering ejectment of the petitioner from two shops in portion of the property in which Gurudwara Sahib has been constructed.

2. Case of petitioner, in brief, is that the property comprised in khasra nos. 709, 711 and 716 were earlier under the ownership of Zila Parishad Mushtarka Malkan, which was left over land after constructing the old Phagwara Road. It was transferred to gram panchayat. A Gurudwara was constructed in khasra no. 709 and 710 (min) (0-13) in the year 1947. This Gurudwara was managed by the Society. On front side of Gurudwara four shops were constructed and on opposite side after crossing the road Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Bhawan was also constructed by the Society. To get the shops vacated, respondent made representation to Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, who marked an enquiry to Tehsildar, Jalandhar-I, Jalandhar. On spot inspection, Tehsildar made report that the shops in dispute are part and parcel of Gurudwara building and petitioner is in illegal possession of the same. The respondent alleged that petitioner is tenant under the Gurudwara Sahib @ Rs. 1000/- per month for each shop and sought ejectment of petitioner on the ground of non-payment of rent and that the petitioner is a nuisance to respondent-landlord. Earlier he got an electric connection on false recommendation of sarpanch of the village Nangal Karar Khan by showing these shops in the area of that village. On coming to know, respondent raised objection and after enquiry the meter was disconnected. The petitioner, thereafter, lodged a false and frivolous FIR against Dharam Chand, President and other members of the respondent-society at Police Station Rama Mandi, Jalandhar. In the enquiry of said FIR, it was found that the petitioner was guilty for offences punishable under Sections 420, 448 IPC and FIR No. 184 dated 23.07.2011 was registered against him. He also filed false and frivolous suit for permanent injunction against Dharam Chand, President and other members of the society.

3. In reply, petitioner contested the claim of respondent inter alia pleading that petition is not maintainable; lacks required ingredients as per provisions of 'the Act'; respondent has not come to Court with clean hands and is guilty of suppressing the true and material facts from the Court and Major Dharam Chand and Mr. Sodhi Lal have no right or authority to file the present petition. On merit it was averred that a Janj Ghar/Community Centre was constructed on the land in question and the village people had formed Paragpur Social Welfare and Development Committee, Paragpur to manage affairs of Janj Ghar/Community Centre. Four shops at the spot are part and parcel of Janj Ghar/Community Centre, which is managed by Paragpur Social Welfare and Development Committee, Paragpur from whom the petitioner had taken two shops on rent. The respondent has got no concern with the shops in question and wants to dispossess the petitioner from the shops in an illegal and unlawful manner. Gurudwara Sahib is in fact opposite to the property in question, which is alleged by the respondent to be Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Bhawan. Regarding the report of Tehsildar, Jalandhar submitted after enquiry, the petitioner alleged that the same is not binding on him as he had no authority to give direction to him for retaining or vacating the shop or pay the rent to a particular person. It was denied that the shops were let out to the petitioner at the monthly rent of Rs. 1000/- per month per shop. All the averments in the petition were contested, controverted and it was averred that the petitioner is not a tenant under the respondent, as such, the responden