Back
2022 Supreme(P&H) 1553
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Manoj Bajaj, J.
Amarjit Singh – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Pooja Sehgal – Respondent
CR. No. 2916 of 2022 (O&M)
Decided On : 27-07-2022
Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for the Appellant.
The correctness and validity of the sale deed in favor of the landlord was not in question, and the existing issues adequately covered the essence of the dispute between the parties, rendering framing of additional issues unnecessary.
Headnote:
tenant - eviction petition - East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13 - Summary: The court dismissed the tenant's petitions challenging the framing of additional issues in eviction proceedings under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The court held that the existing issues adequately covered the essence of the dispute between the parties, and framing of additional issues was not necessary. The court also emphasized that the correctness and validity of the sale deed in favor of the landlord was not in question, distinguishing the case from the judgments relied upon by the petitioners.
Fact of the Case:
The landlady filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, seeking eviction of the tenant from the demised property. The tenant contested the petition, and after completion of pleadings, sought framing of additional issues, which was partly allowed by the Rent Controller.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the existing issues adequately covered the essence of the dispute between the parties, and framing of additional issues was not necessary. It emphasized that the correctness and validity of the sale deed in favor of the landlord was not in question, distinguishing the case from the judgments relied upon by the petitioners.
Issues: The main issue was whether the framing of additional issues in the eviction proceedings was necessary, considering the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that once the parties have adduced their evidence keeping in mind the respective pleadings of the parties, and merely because an issue is not framed, it cannot be said that the suit proceedings are vitiated. It emphasized that the existing issues adequately covered the essence of the dispute between the parties, and framing of additional issues was not necessary.
Final Decision: The revision petitions were dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Manoj Bajaj, J. (Oral) - Petitioner(s)-tenant(s) have filed these separate petitions to challenge the impugned order dated 18.05.2022 passed by the Rent Controller, Jalandhar whereby their respective application seeking framingof additional issues has been partly allowed.
2. Since, the tenant(s) have set up a common ground, therefore, these petitions are being decided by a common judgment, and facts are being extracted from Civil Revision No.2916 of 2022 arising from eviction petition filed under Section 13 of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act of 1949 by Pooja Sehgal against tenant Amarjit Singh. The connected revision petition bearing CR No.2919 of 2022 filed by tenant-Pavitar Singh also arises from eviction petition by Pooja Sehgal, whereas CR No.2925 of 2022 arises from an eviction petition filed by Meenu Sehgal (relative of Pooja Sehgal) against Ashwani Kumar and Rakesh Kumar.
3. Briefly, the facts leading to the revision petition are that the respondent (landlady) filed petition under Section 13 of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 seeking eviction of tenant (petitioner) from the demised property described in the site plan, claiming herself to be the owner of the property, on the strength of sale deed dated 18.03.2013 (Annexure P3) executed in her favour. The tenancy commenced with the execution of the rent note (Annexure P-4) executed between the tenant and previous owner and grounds of eviction are set out in Para 3 of the eviction petition (Annexure P-2). The eviction petition is being contested by the tenant by filing respective written statement (Anneure P-5). Further, landlady controverted the written statement by filing replication.
4. After completion of pleadings, the Rent Controller on 07.05.2019 framed following issues:-
'1. Whether respondent is liable to be evicted from the demised premises on account of personal use and occupation of the petitioner? OPP
2. Whether present suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPR
3. Whether the petitioner has no cause of action to file the present petition? OPR
4. Relief."
4. Thereafter, the parties adduced their respective evidence and after recording the deposition of tenant(s) as RW-1, they filed applications in their respective cases seeking framing of additional issues. The proposed issues are as under:-
'a. Whether the site plan attached with petition is not correct as per actual and factual position and whether proper boundaries, measurement and description of property as well as shop in question have not been correctly mentioned?
b. Whether the shop in occupation of respondent allegedly purchased by petitioner is the identical that of shown in site plan?
c. Whether the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands.?
d. Whether the petitioner became the landlord of respondent by stepping into shoes of landlord Yashpal Singh?"
5. The application was contested by the opposite party by filing reply and the Rent Controller, Jalandhar vide impugned order dated 18.05.2022 partly allowed the application and framed the following additional issues:-
'2A Whether the site plan produced by the petitioner with petition is wrong and not as per actual and factual at the spot? OPR And 1A Whether there exists relationship of landlord and Tenant between the parties. OPP"
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that though the Rent Controller has framed two additional issues, but erroneously declined to frame other additional issues relating to the stand of tenants disputing sale deed set up by the landlady, as well as in respect of the identification of property occupied by them which is different from the property purchased by the landlady. He submits that if, proper issues are framed, it would not only facilitate the Rent Controller to adjudicate the dispute between the parties effectively, but would be also necessary for the rival party to understand the points of conflict and would further help them in adducing the relevant evidence. Mr. Talwar, l
