JUDGMENT :

Vikas Bahl, J.

This is a civil revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 21.09.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Rent Controller, Bathinda, whereby, application for recasting of the proposed issues and changing the burden of issue of issue No.5 upon landlord/respondent, has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, eviction has been sought by the respondent-landlord on the ground of subletting and change of user, however a perusal of the order framing issues dated 10.02.2022 would show that as regards both the aforesaid grounds only one consolidated issue has been framed to the effect 'whether the applicant is entitled to seek the respondent's ejectment from the demised premises on the grounds, as pleaded in the application? OPA'. It is submitted that separate issues should have been framed with respect to the same instead of framing one consolidated issue.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that issue No.5 has been framed in the present case to the effect that 'whether the application is not filed by the authorized/competent person? OPR' and regarding the same, onus has been wrongly put on the petitioner whereas the onus should have been put on the landlord as it was for him to prove that the application had been filed by the authorized/competent person. It is submitted that the application dated 18.07.2024 filed by the petitioner for recasting the issues was meritorious and the same has been wrongly rejected vide the impugned order dated 21.09.2024 and the same deserves to be allowed.

4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and with her able assistance has gone through the record and finds that the impugned order has been rightly passed and the present revision petition being meritless, is liable to be dismissed for the reasons stated hereinafter.

5. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner-tenant with the sole intent to delay the proceedings. The respondent-landlord had filed an eviction petition dated 29.06.2020 under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for seeking ejectment of the present petitioner from the shop in question. A reply to the said application was filed by the petitioner and one of the objections taken in paragraph 7 of the said reply/legal objections was that Chiranji Lal Garg was not the authorized/competent person to file the eviction petition against the tenant and as per the Constitution of the petitioner-Dal, it was only the General Secretary of the said Dal who was competent to file the said eviction petition. A rejoinder was filed to the said application and in paragraph 7 of the said rejoinder, it was stated that Chiranji Lal Garg was the President of the petitioner-Dal and was fully conversant with the facts of the case and had been duly authorized by the working committee vide its Resolution dated 14.03.2020 to file the present eviction petition for seeking eviction of the respondent-tenant and to obtain vacant possession of the demised premises. It was further stated that a copy of the resolution had already been brought on record and thus the objections raised by the respondent-tenant did not arise and were liable to be rejected and that the petition was filed by a duly competent and authorized person.

6. On the basis of the said pleadings, issues were framed on 10.02.2022 which are reproduced as under:-

'Present: Sh. N.M. Aggarwal, Advocate for the applicant.

Sh. N.P. Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 ex parte.

The applicant has filed rejoinder today. A copy of it is supplied to the respondent No. 1.

From the parties ' pleadings, the following issues arise and are framed as under

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to seek the respondent's ejectment from the demised premises on the grounds, as pleaded in the application? OP A

2. Whether the applicant has got no locus standi and caus