129

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH.

CR-1687-2022

Date of Decision: 10.05.2022

Ashok Kumar Kapoor

...Petitioner

Versus

Arun Behl

....Respondent

CORAM :- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:-

Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate

and Mr. Vaibhav Sehgal, Advocate

for the respondent.

*****

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL)

The instant revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of

the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 21.03.2022

(Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana, vide

which, the objections of the respondent-landlord with respect to

summoning of a witness from the Sub Registrar Office, was allowed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant, inter alia, submits

that the impugned order, being repugnant to the settled principles of law,

suffers from material irregularity and thus, deserves to be set aside. He

further submits that the Rent Controller had deprived the petitioner of his

right to cross-examine the respondent-landlord on certain material aspects

of his case, inasmuch as, the transfer deeds executed by the respondent-

landlord and his brother were nothing but sham documents, which had been

executed just to create a confusion. Therefore, since the respondent-landlord

GURPREET KAUR

2022.05.12 10:35

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CR-1687-2022

-2-

was not the owner of the portion of the demised building, he could not seek

the eviction of the petitioner-tenant. He has further submitted that since the

relationship of a landlord and tenant was not admitted between the parties

by the petitioner, he had every right to question the title of the respondent-

landlord.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-

landlord, while vehemently opposing the submissions made by the counsel

opposite, submits that the petitioner by way of the instant revision petition,

is questioning his title to the portion of the demised building, which is not

permissible in view of the provisions of Section 116 of the Indian Evidence

Act.

Learned counsel while drawing the attention of this Court to

the written statement (Annexure P-4) filed by the petitioner before the Rent

Controller, further submits that the petitioner has nowhere denied the

landlord-tenant relationship between the parties and in fact, it is very

evident that the petitioner-tenant is intentionally being evasive in his reply.

Hence, on this ground itself, he is estopped from challenging the title of the

respondent-landlord.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

relevant material on record.

The petitioner-tenant is wanting to put certain relevant records

pertaining to the title deed to the respondent-landlord in his

cross-examination, vide which, the respondent claims to have become

owner of a portion of the demised premises. The petitioner, therefore, in

essence wants to dispute the title of the respondent-landlord by confronting

him with the record. The question, which thus arises for consideration is

GURPREET KAUR

2022.05.12 10:35

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CR-1687-2022

-3-

“whether in the aforementioned circumstances, can the petitioner-tenant be

allowed to dispute the title of the respondent-landlord?”

A perusal of the written statement of the petitioner-tenant

reveals that he has nowhere specifically denied the landlord-tenant

relationship between him and the respondent. Rather, the reply on the face

of it, is vague and evasive. It may be observed that an evasive and vague

denial is no denial in the eyes of law, specially when the petitioner did have

specific knowledge qua the existence or otherwise of landlord-tenant

relationship. Therefore, in the absence of any categori