HARINDER SINGH Vs. GURMEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Karam Singh had two sons, namely Gurmeet Singh and Surinder Singh. Surinder Singh had expired.

(2.) The present revision petition has been filed by the son of Surinder Singh, nephew of respondent. The respondent claims himself to be the landlord of the demised premises. It is pleaded by Gurmeet Singh-respondent that he is a Non-Resident Indian and is owner of the demised shop on the basis of sale deed executed on 28.1.1975 and registered on 29.1.1975 with the Sub Registrar, Jalandhar. It is further pleaded that Surinder Singh, father of the petitioner and real elder brother of the owner of the shop, was inducted as a tenant on 25.10.1980 at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month and in the presence of the family members, six months' advance rent was paid against the written receipt. Subsequently, rent in the year 1987 was enhanced from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 3,000/- per month and in the year 2001, it was enhanced from Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- per month and six months' rent was paid, in advance. On appearance, the petitioner-nephew took a specific stand that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant and he has become owner of the shop by way of adverse possession. It was further stated that a civil suit for declaration to be owner of the demised shop, on the basis of adverse possession, had been filed. It is not denied that the Civil Court had dismissed the suit and held that the petitioner has failed to prove his adverse possession. The Civil Court gave a finding that the possession of petitioner's father over the suit shop was permissive possession and he was in the suit shop with the consent of the respondent. Admittedly, the alleged written receipt, depicting payment of rent, is not available on the record.

(3.) Mr. Tangri, appearing for the petitioner, submits that neither any rent receipt is proved nor any evidence is led to show that the father of the petitioner was the tenant, hence, it could not be assumed that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed. Learned Counsel further submits that at the best, the petitioner can be a licensee of the owner of the property. It is also not disputed that the respondent is owner of the demised shop.