SHIV KUMAR Vs. RAJESH BALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the impugned order dated 09.02.2021 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order XI Rules 14, 15 and 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'CPC') for producing on record the document of title in respect of the demised premises, has been dismissed.

(2.) On 14.08.2017 the respondent filed an ejectment petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 against the petitioner seeking his eviction from House No.HL-119, PHB Colony, Jamalpur, Ludhiana on the grounds of arrears of rent, bona fide necessity and creating a nuisance. The petitioner put in appearance but did not file a written statement. Instead he filed an application (Annexure P-2) under Order XI Rules 14, 15 and 18 CPC directing the respondent to produce on record the document of title in respect of the demised premises besides special power of attorneys if any or copies thereof, house tax and water charges bills. The respondent filed a reply (Annexure P-3) to the said application inter-alia raising a preliminary objection that the CPC was not applicable to proceedings under the Rent Act. The application (Annexure P-2) was dismissed by the Rent Controller vide order dated 19.07.2019 (Annexure P-4). The petitioner filed CR No. 5041 of 2019 before this Court challenging the order dated 19.07.2019 (Annexure P-4). Vide order dated 26.08.2019 (Annexure P-5) this Court disposed off CRNo.5041 of 2019 and set aside the order dated 19.07.2019 (Annexure P-4) and directed the Rent Controller to pass a speaking and well reasoned order afresh on the application (Annexure P-2) filed by the petitioner under Order XI Rules 14, 15 and 18 CPC. The Rent Controller heard the parties again and vide impugned order dated 09.02.2021 (Annexure P-6) dismissed the application (Annexure P-2). Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent has no right, title or interest in the demised premises and she is debarred from filing the ejectment petition. It is further the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that since the document of title has a bearing on the present case, so its production and its inspection by counsel for the petitioner is essential and necessary. He placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in "Desa Sinuh throuuh LRs V/s Sukhrai Kaur and others" 2019(2) PLR 715, "Onkar Sinsh V/s Ravinder Malhotra" 2013(36) RCR (Civil) 684 and "Sharvan Kumar V/s Sumeet Kumar Gar2" 2002 (3) PLR 666.