Eviction under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act requires only prima facie proof of title, which was established by the landlord through a gift deed amid claims of necessity for accommodation.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Harkesh Manuja, J.

By way of present revision petition, challenge has been laid to the judgments dated 29.01.2018 and 14.09.2022 passed by the Courts below, whereby, an eviction petition filed at the instance of respondent-landlord, was allowed.

2. Briefly stating, claiming himself to be owner, on the basis of registered gift deed No.4101 dated 01.02.2005, executed by his father- Satpal, respondent-landlord filed an eviction petition against the petitioner-tenant from a residential portion, situated in Ward No.5, Park Road Dhuri (as detailed in head note of the eviction petition), while submitting that he was in arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.01.2011 till the date of filing the eviction petition, i.e. Rs.100/- per month. It was also pleaded that the respondent-landlord required the premises in question for personal necessity, as one of his sons, namely, Harshit Jain was married and blessed with a daughter, whereas, the other son, namely, Gopal Jain being of marriageable age, there was shortage of residential accommodation for the family.

3. On the other hand, petitioner-tenant appeared and filed a detailed written statement controverting the ownership of respondent-landlord over the property in question, besides even disputing the factum of tenant-landlord relationship between the parties and thus, pleaded that the eviction petition was liable to be dismissed.

4. The Rent Controller vide judgment dated 29.01.2018, allowed the eviction petition filed at the instance of respondent-landlord. Aggrieved thereof, appeal was filed at the instance of petitioner-tenant, however, the same was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide judgment dated 14.09.2022.

5. Impugning the aforementioned judgments passed by the Courts below, learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant submits that there were serious discrepancies in the judgments passed by the authorities below as the respondent-landlord failed to prove his title over the property in question, besides even failed to establish the landlord-tenant relationship. She further submits that the only documents placed on record as regards the ownership over the suit property are the house tax register entries, the judgment and decree dated 13.11.1972 (Ex.A-6 and Ex.A-7) as well as the registered Gift Deed dated 01.02.2005, which could not establish title in favour of respondent-landlord.

Learned counsel also submits that besides the gift deed, none of the other documents were ever pleaded in the eviction petition and thus, the same could not have been relied upon as piece of evidence in support of case set up by the respondent-landlord qua his ownership. She further submits that perusal of eviction petition, besides other documents placed on record were not sufficient to establish the identity of the property in question. While referring to an order dated 07.04.2015 passed by the Rent Controller upon an application under Order 11, Rule 14 CPC, wherein the respondent-landlord failed to produce documents regarding his title, learned counsel submits that the respondent-landlord was debarred from producing or proving the documents in support of his ownership over the property in question, without seeking prior permission from the Rent Controller, which was never done and thus, no such documents could have been considered. She further points out that while appearing as witness (AW-2), the respondent-landlord himself admitted in the cross-examination that he was not in a position to produce any document pertaining to the title of his father/grandfather over the property in question.

In support of her aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the pe