123

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CR-4829-2022 (O&M)

Date of Decision : 29.10.2022

Dalbir Kaur @ Amandeep Kaur

....Petitioner

VERSUS

Rupinder Singh

....Respondent

CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

Present :

Mr. Ankur Ghai, Advocate for the petitioner.

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India challenging the order dated 13.09.2022 passed by the

Rent Controller, Ludhiana dismissing the application filed by the tenant-

petitioner under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC for framing of additional issues.

Learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner would contend that in

view of the fact that the tenant-petitioner is disputing the title of the

landlord, the framing of the following additional issues would be necessary:

a)

Whether Sikander Singh executed legal and valid

Will in favour of the petitioner (Rupinder Singh)

relating to the property in dispute ?

b)

Whether any decree dated 22/01/2015 was

obtained by the petitioner and of what effect ?

c)

Whether respondent was tenant in the property at a

monthly rent of Rs.5000/- ?

TRIPTI SAINI

2022.10.31 10:49

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Chandigarh

CR-4829-2022 (O&M)

-2-

In support of his argument, the learned counsel relies upon a judgment of

the Supreme Court passed in Ranbir Singh Vs. Asharfi Lal [1995 (6) SCC

580].

Heard.

In the present case the tenant-petitioner wants to raise the

question of validity of the Will and questions qua the title of the landlord. It

is trite that in a suit for ejectment under the Rent Act, the question of title

cannot be gone into by the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller is only to

decide whether there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant.

Admittedly, Issue No.1 framed in the present case is “Whether there exists

landlord and tenant relationship between the petitioner and respondent?

OPP”.

The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the

tenant-petitioner in the case of Ranbir Singh (supra) lays down the law as

under :

“9. It may be pointed out that it is well settled law that

the question of title of the property is not germane for

decision of the eviction suit. In a case where a plaintiff

institutes a suit for eviction of his tenant based on the

relationship of the landlord and tenant, the scope of the

suit is very much limited in which a question of title

cannot be gone into because the suit of the plaintiff

would be dismissed even if he succeeds in proving his

title but fails to establish the privity of contract of

tenancy. In a suit for eviction based on such

TRIPTI SAINI

2022.10.31 10:49

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Chandigarh

CR-4829-2022 (O&M)

-3-

relationship the Court has only to decide whether the

defendant is the tenant of the plaintiff or not, though the

question of title is disputed, may incidentally be gone

into, in connection with the primary question for

determining the main question about the relationship

between the litigating parties. In L. I. C. Vs. India

Automobiles & Co. 1990(2) RCR 344 (SC); 1990 (4)

SCC 286 at para 21 this Court had an occasion to deal

with similar controversy. In the said decision this Court

observed that in a suit for eviction between the landlord

and tenant, the Court will take only a prime facie

decision on the collateral issue as to whether the

applicant was landlord. If the Court finds existence of

relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties

it will have to pass a decree in accordance with law. It

has been further observed that all that the Court has to

do is to satisfy itself that the person seeking eviction is

a landlord, who has prima facie right to receive the

rent of the property in question. In order to decide

w