The ownership of the property in question was established in favor of the respondent-landlord, and the petitioner had not paid the rent for the property, which led to the eviction.

CR No.2235 of 2004 (O&M)

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

(102)

CR No.2235 of 2004 (O&M)

Date of Decision : 10.01.2023

Ravi Kumar

....Petitioner

Versus

Pritpal Kaur

....Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

Present:-

Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate and

Mr. A.S. Pannu, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. B.S. Toor, Advocate

for the respondent.

***

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

The present Civil Revision Petiton has been filed challenging

the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 09.03.2004 by which

the appeal filed by the respondent-landlord has been allowed and the rent

petition has been allowed in favour of the respondent-landlord qua the

eviction of the petitioner, who is tenant of the property concerned.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues

that in the present petition, nothing has come on record to show that the

respondent-landlord is the owner of the premises in question and further,

even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the sale deed dated

15.10.1991, which has been proved as Ex.P-1, described the respondent as

the owner of the premises in question, the said sale deed has not been

JYOTI

2023.01.13 15:47

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this

order/judgmentt

CR No.2235 of 2004 (O&M)

2

co-related qua the premises in question, which is being occupied by the

petitioner as a tenant.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as

there is no assessment of the rent of the property in question, which

allegedly has not been paid by the petitioner, which has led to the

eviction, the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 09.03.2004

allowing rent petition is liable to be set aside.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-

landlord submits that the Rent Controller did not appreciate the facts in

correct perspective by taking into consideration the fact that the sale deed

Ex.P-1 was on record and the description of the property was given in the

site plan, which was appended as Ex.P-2, coupled with the record of

Municipal Council.

Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the

ownership of the property in favour of the respondent-landlord was

co-related with the record of the Municipal Council, which has gone

unrebutted, according to which, the property in question has been shown

to be in the ownership of the respondent-landlord and was let out to the

₹

petitioner @ 500/- per month.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone

through the record of the case with their able assistance.

The sale deed of the property in question has been placed on

record as Ex.P-1 and the same has already been proved that respondent

Pritpal Kaur is the owner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been

able to rebut the said fact. Not only this, the ownership was also

co-related by the site plan Ex.P-2, according to which, the property which

JYOTI

2023.01.13 15:47

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this

order/judgmentt

CR No.2235 of 2004 (O&M)

3

is owned by the respondent is the same property, which was let out to the

petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to disprove

the said fact that according to the sale deed Ex.P-1 coupled with the site

plan, the property in question is owned by respondent Pritpal Kaur.

Not only this, the property in question has also been recorded

in the municipal record under the ownership of the respondent-landlord.

Further, as per the municipal record, which has been brought on record,

which has been proved and said fact has gone unrebutted that the said

property is being occupied as tenant by the petitioner at the monthly rent

₹

of 500/- per month. Once the said findings of facts have already been

recorded by the Lower Appellate Court and that too, on the basis of the

evidence, which has come on record, the assertion of the learned counsel

for the petitioner that there is no co-relation o