NARINDER KUMAR DUREJA Vs. JUGRAJ SINGH KANG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide this order, Civil Revision Nos. 3287 and 3288 of 2007 would be disposed of as these have arisen out of judgment dated 3.4.2007.

(2.) Respondent had sought ejectment of the petitioner by moving a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (the Act for short). Case of the landlord/ respondent, in brief, was that Harjit Kaur and Karanbir Singh were owners of house No. 2015 Sector 15-C, Chandigarh. Respondent had purchased the said house from the owners vide sale deed dated 11.4.2001. The house in question had been transferred in the name of the respondent vide transfer letter dated 29.5.2001. The premises in question had been rented out to the petitioner at a monthly rent of Rs. 5,200/- i.e. Rs. 4,000/- for the ground floor excluding water and electricity charges and Rs. 1,200/- for the room on the first floor excluding water and electricity charges. Respondent required the premises in question for his own personal use and occupation as he was going to retire on 30.6.2002. Respondent was in occupation of Government accommodation and was in occupation of two rooms on the ground floor adjoining the demised premises. The accommodation in question was insufficient for the respondent. Further it was prayed that the petitioner had failed to pay rent w.e.f. 24.8.1998 onwards.

(3.) Petitioner, in his written statement, denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was averred that the sale deed in question had been got registered by mis-stating the facts and by playing fraud on the Administration. The conspiracy in question had been hatched in June 1996. Parveen Kaur sold the property to Harjit Kaur and Karanbir Singh vide a fake sale deed. On the basis of the said fake sale deed, respondent Jugraj Singh was claiming himself to be owner of the premises in question. Harjit Kaur and Karanbir Singh had no right, title or interest in the suit property and were not competent to execute the sale deed in favour of the respondent. Matter was reported to the police but no action had been taken by the police or the Estate Office.