OM PARKASH Vs. RAM KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of two revision petitions bearing CR No. 1398 of 2011 titled as 'Om Parkash v. Ram Kumar and others and CR. No. 1399 of 2011 titled as 'Om Parkash v. Ram Kumar and another' as CR No. 1399 of 2011 was ordered by this Court to be heard along with CR No. 1398 of 2011 vide its order dated 20.04.2011.

(2.) In short, the facts of CR No. 1398 of 2011 are that Ram Kumar and Kanwal Swaroop (respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein), both sons of late Shri Ved Parkash, filed an eviction petition No. 55 of 2003 against Satpal son of Naranjan Dass (respondent No. 3 herein) under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949for short ''the Act''. for his ejectment from shop bearing No. NK-107, situated in Bazar Nauhrian, Jalandharfor short ''demised premises. which was under the tenancy of respondent No. 3 @ Rs. 100/- per month. It was alleged that father of respondent No. 3 took the demised premises on rent from father of the landlords initially @ Rs. 12/-per month. After the death of father of respondent No. 3, he became a tenant under the father of the landlords under the same terms and conditions. Later on, father of the landlords also expired and they became the landlords. The rent was enhanced from time to time to the extent of Rs. 100/- per month. They filed the eviction petition, inter alia, on the grounds of non-payment of rent @ Rs. 100/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996, the demised premises was required for their bona fide necessity, it has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and also because of nuisance. The respondent No. 3 appeared on notice and filed his written statement. He denied the rate of rent but admitted that the demised premises was taken on rent by his father @ Rs. 32/- per month. He tendered the rent in Court amounting to Rs. 1,140/-and interest of Rs. 280/- along with costs as assessed. The landlords filed rejoinder and after the pleadings were over, six issues were framed by the learned Rent Controller on 25.04.2005. Thereafter, respondent No. 3 did not turn up to contest the eviction petition and was proceeded against ex-parte. The landlords, in support of their case, examined themselves as PW3 and PW1 respectively, Lalit Shori as PW2 and Devanand as PW4. They also suffered a statement that they do not want to press the grounds of dilapidated condition and source of nuisance. The learned Rent Controller decided issues Nos. 1 and 2 together and held that though the rent was assessed @ Rs. 100/- per month but the tenant tendered the rent Rs. 12/- per month, therefore, the tender was short and hence he was liable to be evicted from the demised premises. Issue No. 3 was also decided in favour of the landlords by holding that the demised premises is required for their bona fide necessity. Ultimately, vide order dated 11.10.2007, the learned Rent Controller passed the eviction order and directed the tenant/respondent No. 3 to vacate the demised premises within 2 months. When the landlords filed execution of the order of the learned Rent Controller, which became final as it was not challenged further, an application was filed by the present petitioner Om Parkash in which he alleged that his father was doing the business of 'shoe maker' in the demised premises and he was assisting him in it during his life time. He alleged that respondent No. 3 was inimical towards him who had got suffered an ex-parte ejectment order to the detriment of his interest. This objection/application was contested by the landlords which has been dismissed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar as an Executing Court vide the impugned order dated 16.02.2011 holding that the petitioner has never been in possession of the demised premises as he failed in Civil Suit No. 327 of 2009 which was filed by him against the landlords for injunction. It was also observed that the petitioner has failed to place on record any rent receipt regarding payment of rent by him to the father of the landlords or even electricity bill regarding payment of electricity charges or any documentary evidence in order to prove that he is doing the shoe making business in the demised premises after the death of his father. In this background, the present revision petition has now been preferred by the objector Om Parkash before this Court.

(3.) The facts of CR No. 1399 of 2011 are that Om Parkash filed the Civil Suit No. 327 of 2009 for permanent injunction in order to restrain the landlords from taking forcible possession of the demised premises. His suit was hotly contested by the landlords. While deciding issue No. 1 with regard to permanent injunction to be granted or not, the Court below had observed that the petitioner Om Parkash had admitted that after the death of his father, he never paid the rent to the defendants (landlords). He also admitted that he was living in the same house but the rooms were different. It was observed that pendency of the eviction petition dated 19.08.2003, which culminated into ejectment of Satpal vide order dated 11.10.2007 Ex.D1, cannot be said to be not in his knowledge as he was living with his brother in the same house. It was also observed that the ejectment petition was filed on 19.08.2003 and it remained pending for 4 years as it was allowed on 11.10.2007 and that Satpal (respondent No. 3) had also tendered the rent though @ Rs. 12/- per month instead of Rs. 100/- per month as claimed by the landlords. In nut shell, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar vide its order dated 08.06.2010 dismissed the suit holding that Om Parkash was not in possession of the demised premises and cannot claim injunction. Against the said judgment and decree, the petitioner Om Parkash filed appeal before the First Appellate Court along with an application for stay which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been decided so far. Thus, this is the cause of action in the present revision petition.