133

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CR No.2916 of 2022 (O&M)

Amarjit Singh

...Petitioner

Vs.

Smt. Pooja Sehgal

...Respondent

2

CR No.2919 of 2022 (O&M)

Pavitar Singh

...Petitioner

Vs.

Smt. Pooja Sehgal

...Respondent

3

CR No.2925 of 2022 (O&M)

Ashwani Kumar

...Petitioner

Vs.

Smt. Meenu Sehgal and another

...Respondents

Date of decision-27.07.2022

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ BAJAJ

Present:

Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

***

MANOJ BAJAJ, J. (Oral)

Petitioner(s)-tenant(s) have filed these separate petitions to

challenge the impugned order dated 18.05.2022 passed by the Rent

Controller, Jalandhar whereby their respective application seeking framing

GEETA RANI

2022.08.09 17:12

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

CR No.2916 of 2022 (O&M) and other connection case

-2-

of additional issues has been partly allowed.

Since, the tenant(s) have set up a common ground, therefore,

these petitions are being decided by a common judgment, and facts are

being extracted from Civil Revision No.2916 of 2022 arising from eviction

petition filed under Section 13 of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act of

1949 by Pooja Sehgal against tenant Amarjit Singh. The connected revision

petition bearing CR No.2919 of 2022 filed by tenant-Pavitar Singh also

arises from eviction petition by Pooja Sehgal, whereas CR No.2925 of 2022

arises from an eviction petition filed by Meenu Sehgal (relative of Pooja

Sehgal) against Ashwani Kumar and Rakesh Kumar.

Briefly, the facts leading to the revision petition are that the

respondent (landlady) filed petition under Section 13 of East Punjab Urban

Rent Restriction Act, 1949 seeking eviction of tenant (petitioner) from the

demised property described in the site plan, claiming herself to be the owner

of the property, on the strength of sale deed dated 18.03.2013 (Annexure P-

3) executed in her favour. The tenancy commenced with the execution of the

rent note (Annexure P-4) executed between the tenant and previous owner

and grounds of eviction are set out in Para 3 of the eviction petition

(Annexure P-2). The eviction petition is being contested by the tenant by

filing respective written statement (Anneure P-5). Further, landlady

controverted the written statement by filing replication.

After completion of pleadings, the Rent Controller on

07.05.2019 framed following issues:-

“1.

Whether respondent is liable to be evicted from

the demised premises on account of personal use and

GEETA RANI

2022.08.09 17:12

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

CR No.2916 of 2022 (O&M) and other connection case

-3-

occupation of the petitioner? OPP

2.

Whether present suit is not maintainable in the

present form? OPR

3.

Whether the petitioner has no cause of action to

file the present petition? OPR

4.

Relief.”

Thereafter, the parties adduced their respective evidence and

after recording the deposition of tenant(s) as RW-1, they filed applications

in their respective cases seeking framing of additional issues. The proposed

issues are as under:-

“a.

Whether the site plan attached with petition is not

correct as per actual and factual position and whether

proper boundaries, measurement and description of property

as well as shop in question have not been correctly

mentioned?

b.

Whether the shop in occupation of respondent

allegedly purchased by petitioner is the identical that of

shown in site plan?

c.

Whether the petitioner has not come to the Court with

clean hands.?

d.

Whether the petitioner became the landlord of

respondent by stepping into shoes of landlord Yashpal

Singh?”

The application was contested by the opposite party by filing

reply and the Rent Controller, Jalandhar vide impugned order dated

GEETA RANI

2022.08.09 17:12

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

CR No.2916 of 2022 (O&M) and other connection case

-4-

18.05.2022 partly allowe