IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-1969-2026 Date of Decision:-26.02.2026 Abhishek Jain ……Petitioner Versus Chaudhrian Jindal Baradari ……Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL ****

Present: Mr. Sunny K. Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner.

****

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (Oral)

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the order dated 15.01.2026 (Annexure P-6) passed by the learned Rent Controller, Malerkotla, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order XII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent–Chaudhrian Jindal Baradari filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 against the present petitioner before the learned Rent Controller, Malerkotla, seeking eviction of the present petitioner from the demised premises. Notice of the said petition was duly issued to the present petitioner; however, no written statement was filed. The record further reveals that the present petitioner moved an application seeking a direction to the respondent/landlord to produce the original title deed/document pertaining to the demised premises, the original registration certificate, the original resolution, and the original list of office bearers, and to supply copies thereof to the petitioner. Notice of the said application was issued to the respondent, who filed a reply thereto. The said application was allowed by the learned Rent Controller vide order dated 22.08.2024 and the respondent was directed to produce the original ownership document/title deed of the demised premises, the original certificate of registration, the original resolution, and the list of office bearers. However, as per the interim order dated 16.07.2025, Ajay Kumar, President of Chaudhiran Jindal Baradari, suffered a statement to the effect that the original title deed was not available with the respondent. He, however, produced the original registration certificate, the list of office bearers, and the resolution. Further, vide interim order dated 16.07.2025, the learned Rent Controller observed that in case the respondent seeks to produce the original title deed at a later stage, prior permission of the Court shall be obtained; failing which, an adverse inference shall be drawn against the respondent. Thereafter, instead of filing a written statement to the main petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, the present petitioner moved an application under Order XII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking a direction to the respondent/landlord to admit or deny as to whether it is the owner of the suit property and also to disclose the dimensions of the sides of the suit property. Notice of the said application was issued to the respondent/landlord, who contested the same by filing a reply. The learned Rent Controller, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the said application vide order dated 15.01.2026 (impugned order), holding that at this stage it is not denied that the respondent is a tenant under the petitioner in the demised premises. It was further observed in the impugned order that it is a settled proposition of law that once the relationship of landlord and tenant stands established, the tenant has no right to challenge the ownership of the landlord.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 15.01.2026 passed by the learned Rent Controller is illegal and contrary to the provision of law and facts of the case.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the paper book.

5. In view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the respondents is dispensed with, as the same would only delay the proceedings and entail unnecessary expenses.

6. Thus, once it has been categorically held by the