ANIL KUMAR SHARMA Vs. BARJINDER SINGH MANN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this common order I shall be disposing of four Civil Revisions namely, CR No. 1313 of 2011 titled as "Anil Kumar Sharma v. Barjinder Singh Mann '', CR No. 1314 of 2011 titled as ''Joginder Singh v. Barjinder Singh Mann '', CR No. 1326 of 2011 titled as ''Amarjit Singh Makkar v. Barjinder Singh Mann '' and CR No. 1327 of 2011 titled as ''Jasvir Singh v. Barjinder Singh Mann '' as identical questions of law and fact are involved therein.

(2.) THE brief background of this litigation is that the landlord filed four applications under Section 13 -B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act ') in order to seek eviction of four tenants occupying four shops allegedly owned by him. The tenants had a right to seek leave to defend, which was exercised by them by filing applications in the month of November 2009. In all the four cases, the tenants filed an applications under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC ') seeking amendment on the ground that the landlord can get only one shop vacated. This amendment was allowed as it was not contested by the landlord. In other three cases except for CR No. 1313 of 2011, the tenants filed three applications namely, (i) amendment of the application for leave to contest, (ii) application for admission and denial, (iii) dismissal of the eviction petition on the ground that the landlord is not the owner. However, in CR No. 1313 of 2011, two applications were filed by the tenant namely, (i) that the landlord is not NRI as he has not produced Green Card, (ii) that eviction petition be dismissed as he is not the owner. The learned Rent Controller dismissed all the applications filed in all the four cases by a common order as a result of which four revision petitions have been filed before this Court in which notice of motion was issued pursuant to which landlord has put in appearance through his counsel.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that by virtue of an application filed by the Petitioner to Tehsildar on 30.11.2010, information was sought as to who is the owner of Khasra No. 165/2 situated at village Hassan Rora, Tehsil and District Ludhiana as the landlord had claimed himself to be the owner of the same on the basis of a gift deed which is allegedly executed in his favor by his mother Dalip Kaur, which is the subject matter of the dispute. The said application dated 30.11.2010 was forwarded by Tehsildar, Ludhiana (East) to Halqa Patwari for the purpose of report. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Patwari had reported that from the record he has not found Khasra No. 165/2 to be entered anywhere. The said report of Patwari dated 30.11.2010 made the basis of the application which was filed for seeking dismissal of the eviction petition and has been dismissed by the Rent Controller vide his impugned order dated 10.2.2011. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has further submitted that while dismissing the said application, learned Rent Controller has not even adverted to the report of Halqa Patwari and has only relied upon the mutation produced by the landlord/Respondent which was sanctioned in his name with regard to Khasra No. 165/2. He also submitted that the learned Court below remained under the impression that the landlord has to only prove relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties but in a case where application is filed under Section 13 -B of the Act, landlord has to prove that he is the owner of the demised property in dispute for the last more than five years.