208 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-5587-2022 (O&M)

Date of decision: 15.09.2025 Tarun Salhotra ...Petitioner Versus Anu Sareen and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Mr. Avnish Mittal, Advocate and Ms. Ishika Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vineet Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent No.1.

****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

1. Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 26.08.2022 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ambala, vide which, while allowing the application filed by the petitioner under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC for framing additional issue as to whether there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the Rent Controller had wrongly put the onus on the tenant-petitioner to prove the said issue. Challenge is also to the order dated 15.11.2022 passed by the same Court, vide which, an application filed by the petitioner-tenant for recalling the abovesaid order dated 26.08.2022 had also been dismissed.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:-

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, respondent No.1-alleged landlord-Ms. Anu Sareen had filed a petition for ejectment seeking eviction of the present petitioner and one Vishal Batra from the premises in question on the plea that earlier Ram Mohan Wahee was the owner and landlord of the premises and the present petitioner was statutory tenant under him and after the death of Ram Mohan Wahee, respondent No.1, who had alleged that she had registered a Will in her favour from the said Ram Mohan Wahee, had now become the landlord and the present petitioner was tenant under her. It is submitted that various grounds of eviction were pleaded, including the ground of arrears of rent and that the present petitioner in the written statement had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It is submitted that in spite of the said pleadings, the Rent Controller on 17.02.2022 did not frame any issue regarding there being relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and immediately, thereafter the petitioner had filed an application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC for framing of the said additional issue.

3. It is submitted that in the said application, the said issue was specifically framed and onus of the said issue as to whether there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, in accordance with the settled law, was not placed upon the respondent No.1 who had filed eviction petition and was claiming herself to be the landlord. It is submitted that in spite of it being the settled law that it is for the person who files an eviction petition to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant and despite the same having been denied by the tenant in the written statement, the Rent Controller put the onus of the said issue on the present petitioner/tenant and even framed the issue in the negative form. It is submitted that the petitioner had filed an application for review/recalling of the said order but the same had been dismissed. It is submitted that it has been repeatedly held by this Court as well as various other Courts that onus to prove the said relationship is on the person who has filed the eviction petition. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon the judgment dated 18.03.1985 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in case titled as Maj. Parkash Gupta Vs. Sat Parkash Arora, reported as 1985(1) RCR (Rent) 536 as well as judgment dated 05.08.1997 passed by the Bombay High Court titled as Laxman Bapu Berad Vs. Sudhakar Nanasaheb Jawale, reported as (1998) 2 Bom CR 259. It is prayed that the impugned orders be set aside to the limited extent of the issue having been negatively framed and the onus having been put on the present petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further highlighted the order dated 01.12.2022 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide which notice of m