DEVINDER SINGH PURI Vs. B.N. RAMPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition presents a piquant situation in as much as the tenant-petitioner who has insisted on appearing in person has not only mis- used the process of the Court but has refused to assist the Court. This has resulted into wastage of the precious time of the Court and the administration of justice has also suffered. The instant petition has been filed under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 challenging concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below holding that the tenant-petitioner is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.4.1994 to 31.12.1994. The assertion made by the tenant-petitioner that there was a compromise entered into between the parties in the month of February, 1995 and the rent was paid in the presence of the brother of the landlord-respondent has been disbelieved as no evidence of fact of payment of rent has been tendered except the bald statement of the tenant-petitioner. It has also been found that the rate of rent has been Rs. 2,250/- p.m. and the premises were given on rent w.e.f. 1.11.1992. In March, 1993 also an ejectment petition was filed against the tenant-petitioner where he tendered the rent upto 31.8.1993 alongwith interest in the Court of the Rent Controller, Chandigarh on 23.11.1993. That ejectment petition was thereafter withdrawn. Another petition seeking ejectment of the tenant-petitioner on the ground of arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.9.1993 to 31.12.1993 was also filed. The ex parte eviction order was passed against the tenant-petitioner.

(2.) THE Courts below have also found that there is relationship of landlord and tenant as it has been admitted by the tenant-petitioner that the landlord- respondent is the co-landlord alongwith his brother D.N. Rampal when he appeared as RW1. He also admitted that he had been paying rent to the landlord-respondent who had infact created tenancy with the tenant-petitioner. On that basis it has been found that the tenant-petitioner is not entitled to raise any dispute of title in respect of his landlord. The document Ex.PX has been admitted by the tenant-petitioner which shows that the tenant-petitioner has tendered security amount of Rs. 2,250/- to the landlord-respondent and the tenancy was to start from 1.11.1992 with the rate of rent of Rs. 2,200/- p.m. The petitioner also filed an application for review of the order dated 24.12.1997 passed by the Rent Controller ordering his ejectment. The application was rejected by the Rent Controller on 21.1.1998. Another application for adducing of additional evidence was also rejected on 14.2.1998.

(3.) THE case was taken up today for arguments and Mr. D.S. Puri appearing in person adopted the same stance and stated that he wishes to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble the Chief Justice. He further stated that he wants to file S.L.P. in the Supreme Court and would address arguments only thereafter. He has been apprised that he may approach the Supreme Court by filing S.L.P. or he may meet the Chief Justice but he has to address arguments in this petition. However, he has again requested for adjournment for which I do not find any justification and, therefore, his request has been declined.