Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 3928
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
PARMOD GOYAL, J
TILAK RAJ – Appellant
Versus
DES RAJ KAINTH – Respondent
CR-6920-2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Mandeep Singh Sachdev
For the Respondents:
The court emphasized that the relationship of landlord and tenant is established through unchallenged evidences, reinforcing the principle of jurisdiction despite procedural naming errors in eviction petitions.
Headnote:(A) Punjab Rent Act, 1995 - Sections 20 and 75 - Jurisdiction of Rent Controller - Eviction of tenant - The eviction petition filed by landlord duly establishes relationship of landlord and tenant, with substantial evidence including sale deeds and rent assessments provided - Mere oral assertions from the tenant, unbacked by evidence, cannot undermine this. (Paras 10-12)
(B) Maintainability of petition - Misnaming of the enabling provision in the eviction petition does not inherently affect the petition’s validity as the cause of action was evident. Even if the Act was repealed, the summary of evidence supported the claim for eviction. (Paras 8-9)
Facts of the case:
The landlord sought eviction due to non-payment of rent since March 2011, asserting rightful ownership through documented evidence. The tenant challenged the petition claiming non-residency and lack of locus standi.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the landlord’s claim based on unchallenged evidence, leading to the conclusion of tenancy relationship.
Issues: The primary concerns involved validating the relationship of landlord and tenant and the petition's maintainability considering tenant's claims of non-residency.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reinforced the principle that the absence of evidence by the tenant to rebut claims of the landlord affirms the landlord’s position. Furthermore, procedural inconsistencies in naming legislation do not dismiss valid claims for eviction.
Result: Revision petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. landlord asserts eviction due to non-payment of rent. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court evaluates evidence presented by landlord and tenant. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. jurisdiction under rent act established despite naming inaccuracies. (Para 7 , 11) |
| 4. final ruling rejects the revision petition based on substantive evidence. (Para 12) |
Parmod Goyal, J.
Petitioner (hereinafter referred as petitioner/tenant) is aggrieved by order dated 10.09.2025, passed by learned Appellate Authority, Jalandhar vide which appeal, against order of the learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar dated 28.07.2022, wherein eviction petition of landlord was allowed and respondent/tenant was directed to hand over the vacant possession within three months, was dismissed.
2. Respondent (hereinafter referred as respondent/landlord) in his petition for eviction asserted that suit property was purchased by his mother to the extent of 16 ½ marlas vide registered sale deed dated 04.08.1980. Similarly, his father had also purchased 16 ½ marlas of suit property vide sale deed dated 01.08.1980. The property was shared by father and mother of petitioner and they raised construction of house over property measuring 33 marlas. The house was constructed as a single unit. That father of petitioner died on 19.11.2010 at U.K. whereas his mother had died on 19.03.2004 at U.K.. Petitioner along with his brothers had inherited property of their parents and accordingly, became co-sharers to the extent of 1/3rd share each. It is asserted that petitioner as well as his two brothers are not residents of India and are based at U.K. It was the case of petitioner that father of petitioner had let out premises to respondent on rent in the year 1987 on monthly rent of Rs.15,000/-. The rent was increased from time to time and lastly it was Rs.30,000/-. It was asserted that till March 2011 respondent/tenant had been paying rent regularly but after March 2011 he had stopped making the payment. That respondent is in arrears of rent since March 2011. That petitioner had also filed a petition under Section 24 of Punjab Rent Act , 1995. Accordingly, eviction of appellant/tenant was prayed for.
3. Respondent appeared and filed detailed written statement, wherein he asserted that petitioner is a non-resident Indian and has no locus standi to file the present petition as he has not returned to India permanently. It was asserted that Court has no jurisdiction being Rent Controller. It was asserted that petitioner is not owner of the property. Sale deeds dated 04.08.1980 and 01.08.1980 in favour of father and mother of petitioner were stated to be not binding. It was asserted that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant and, therefore, fixation of rent or payment of rent was stated to be wrong. Accordingly, dismissal of petition was prayed for.
4. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed :-
1. Whether there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties ? OPP
2. Whether the petition of petitioner is not maintainable?
OPR
3. Whether the petition filed by the petitioner is based on false and frivolous facts? OPR
4. Whether petitioner has not a non-resident Indian and he has got no locus-standi? OPR
5. Whether the site plan attached with the petition does not show the actual and factual position? OPR
6. Relief.
5. Petitioner by appearing as PW1 and by examining PW2 Clerk from HRC Branch, DC Office had duly asserted and proved that he is non- resident Indian and his father and mother were owner of property vide sale deeds dated 01.08.1980 and 04.08.1980 Exhibit P-2 and P-3. Petitioner had also examined PW3 Clerk from Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar regarding house tax assessment. PW3 stated that as per Form TS1 Tilak Raj has been shown as one of the tenants. PW4 was examined to prove records of electricity connection in the name of Des Raj and has duly placed record pertaining to electricity bills as Ex.PW4/A to Ex.PW4/E.
6. In response to evidence of petitioner, defendant had n
