IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Alka Sarin, J.
Ram Parkash - Appellant
Versus
Jagdeep Singh Ghangas - Respondent
CR No. 511 of 2021 (O&M)
Decided On : 16-03-2021
Ejectment Petition - Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 - Section 13 - Order 7 Rule 11, CPC
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed an ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 for eviction of the petitioner from a shop. The petitioner filed an application for rejection of the ejectment petition, claiming that the respondent was not the owner of the demised shop.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the averments in the ejectment petition did not warrant rejection under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC. The grounds raised by the petitioner were deemed matters of evidence and not relevant for rejecting the application.
Issues: The main issue was whether the ejectment petition should be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC based on the petitioner's claims regarding the ownership of the demised shop.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the relevant facts for deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC are the averments in the plaint. The court also highlighted that the power to reject a plaint at the threshold should be used in exceptional circumstances and only when the plaintiff does not have an arguable case at all.
Final Decision: The civil revision petition was dismissed, and it was clarified that the dismissal did not express an opinion on the merits of the case.
ORDER
Alka Sarin, J. - Heard through physical hearing.
2. The present revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 14.01.2020 dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for rejection of the ejectment petition filed by the respondent.
3. The facts relevant to the present Us are that in September 2018 the respondent filed an ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 for eviction of the petitioner from Shop No. 13, part of land measuring 3 Biswas i.e. 150square yards comprised in Khewat No. 1086 Khatoni No. 1513, Khasra Nos.3585/16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29 situated in Parti Rajputan within the limits of Municipal Corporation No. 5092, Panipat, known as Gandhi Mandi, Panipat. The respondent claimed himself as landlord and sought the eviction of the petitioner (tenant) inter-alia on the grounds of arrears of rent, personal necessity for running Advocate's office as also on the ground that the shop in question was more than 60 years old and the petitioner was not keeping it clean and never cared for whitewashing etc. and the respondent wanted to reconstruct the same and convert it into his office.
4. The petitioner put in appearance before the Rent Controller and filed an application (Annexure P-2) under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC for rejection of the ejectment petition on the ground that the respondent is not the owner of the demised shop on the basis of the sale deed (Annexure P-4) and that the respondent had no right, title or interest in the demised shop and that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was also averred in the application that the sale deed (Annexure P-4) did not disclose the demised shop and infact pertained to a house. It was further stated in the application that the father of the petitioner had taken the demised shop from the Jain Sanstha in the year 1983 and that after the death of the father on 05.04.1996 a partition had taken place between the petitioner and his brothers, namely, Joginder Lal and Madan Lal and the demised shop fell in the lot of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for an electric connection in his own name and the electric connection was also issued by the Nigam in his namefor which he has regularly been paying the electricity charges since 1996 and running his shop in the name and style of Ram Parkash Old Tyre Wala. It was also averred that the petitioner has paid taxes to the Municipal Corporation, Panipat up to 1998-1999. It was further averred in the application that the ejectment petition was a counter-blast to the civil suit filed by the petitioner. The respondent filed a reply (Annexure P-3) to the application filed by the petitioner and contested the same. Vide the impugned order dated 14.01.2020 the application (Annexure P-2) was dismissed by the Rent Controller holding inter-alia that "Perusal of above mentioned sale deed transpires that the property mentioned in the same is the one of which the petitioner has filed the present petition against the respondent/applicant. Merely because the suit property is described as house in the said sale deed instead of disputed shop is no ground to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC as first of all this is no ground to reject any plaint under this clause". The Rent Controller further held that if the petitioner used to pay rent to the Jain Sanstha then after the demised shop had been sold by the Jain Sanstha to the respondent then the petitioner came under the tenancy of the respondent. Hence, the present civil revision petition.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the ejectment petition has been filed qua Shop No. 13, part of land measuring 3 Biswas i.e. 150 square yards comprised in Khewat No. 1086 Khatoni No. 1513 KhasraNos.3585/16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.