GIAN CHAND GHAIWAL Vs. PARAMJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LANDLORD Gian Chand Ghaiwal has filed this revision petition under Section 15(5)( in fact revision lies under Section 18A(8) )of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short 'the Act') assailing order dated 24.07.2009 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar thereby dismissing the ejectment petition filed by landlord-petitioner under Section 13-B of the Act seeking ejectment of respondent-tenant Paramjit Singh from the demised premises. Application moved by the tenant-respondent for leave to contest the ejectment petition was dismissed by learned Rent Controller vide order dated 16.08.2007 (Annexure P-3) and consequently ejectment petition was allowed. However, Civil Revision No.5101 of 2007 filed by tenant against the said order was allowed by this Court vide order dated 26.11.2008 (Annexure P-1) and leave to contest the ejectment petition was granted to the tenant. By the same order, on request of counsel for the landlord, this Court directed the Rent Controller to decide the ejectment petition within six months after C.R. No.5875 of 2011 (O&M) 2 affording three opportunities each to the landlord and the tenant to conclude their evidence.

(2.) THE petitioner-landlord failed to lead any evidence inspite of three opportunities granted to him for his evidence. Consequently, learned Rent Controller closed the evidence of the landlord vide order dated 16.07.2009 (Annexure P-2). Consequently, tenant-respondent also did not lead any evidence. Learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar vide impugned order dated 24.07.2009 dismissed the ejectment petition filed by the landlord-petitioner because there was no evidence to substantiate his claim.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner contended that even the tenant did not lead any evidence to substantiate his claim on the basis of which he was granted leave to contest the ejectment petition and, therefore, the ejectment petition could not be dismissed merely because the landlord did not lead any evidence. The contention cannot be accepted. This Court vide order Annexure P-1 while granting leave to the tenant to contest the ejectment petition observed that disputed questions of facts are involved and are to be determined by the Rent Controller inter alia whether the premises are required for the bonafide use and occupation by the landlord. Onus to prove the same was on the landlord-petitioner. In fact, onus of issues No.1 to 5 was on the petitioner-landlord. Since he failed to lead any evidence, the said issues were decided against him. In view of findings on the said issues, the necessary result was dismissal of the ejectment petition. Consequently, it cannot be said that ejectment petition should have C.R. No.5875 of 2011 (O&M) 3 been allowed merely because the tenant did not lead any evidence. Ejectment petition could not be allowed because the landlord-petitioner did not lead any evidence in support of his claim. COUNSEL for the petitioner-landlord also prayed that one more opportunity may be granted to the landlord-petitioner for leading evidence. This prayer also cannot be allowed in view of the earlier order Annexure P-1 passed by this Court whereby on request of counsel for the landlord himself, the Rent Controller was directed to grant only three opportunities each to the landlord and the tenant to conclude their evidence. It is undisputed that three opportunities were granted to the landlord for his evidence by the Rent Controller. Consequently, there is no justification for granting any more opportunity to the landlord-petitioner for his evidence. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this revision petition. The impugned order of learned Rent Controller does not suffer from any perversity, illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed.