SUBHASH CHANDER Vs. HARJIT SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENTS had filed the petition under Section 13 of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 seeking ejectment of the petitioner from the premises in question. Learned Rent Controller vide order dated 20.10.2007 allowed the ejectment petition. Aggrieved against the said order, petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 7.8.2008. Petitioner challenged the said order by filing Civil Revision No. 6192 of 2008 and the same was allowed by this Court vide order dated 19.4.2010 and the matter was remanded to the Appellate Authority for a fresh decision. The appeal was again dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 24.5.2010. Thereafter, petitioner filed Civil Revision No. 4269 of 2010 challenging the said order of the Appellate Authority. The said revision petition was allowed by this Court vide order dated 9.3.2011 and the matter was remanded to the Appellate Authority. Vide order dated 23.8.2011, the appeal was again dismissed by the Appellate Authority. Petitioner challenged the said order of the Appellate Authority in this Court by filing Civil Revision No. 5570 of 2011 which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 09.5.2012 and the matter was remanded to the Appellate Authority for a fresh decision in accordance with law. The Appellate Authority vide order dated 15.3.2013 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Hence, the present petition by the petitioner -tenant.

(2.) LEARNED senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in fact, the premises in question was being used for commercial purposes and the landlord could not seek eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question on the ground that he required the premises in question for his residential purposes. The property in question was owned by Karnail Singh. The landlord had put up a fake will in favour of the respondents alleged to have been executed by Karnail Singh to seek eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question on the ground of personal necessity as Mehar Singh father of the respondents owned another property. Petitioner had been paying the rent to Mehar Singh by way of cheques. In this regard, reliance has been placed on receipt Annexure P -17. In support of his arguments, learned senior counsel has placed reliance on 'Shabir Ahmad versus Sham Lal,, 2002(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 306', wherein it has been held as under: -

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioner had been paying rent to the respondents by way of cheques. Hence, the Courts below had rightly held that their existed relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Moreover, the petitioner could not challenge the Will executed by the grandfather of the respondents in their favour. The premises in question was a shop cum flat. Part of the building was to be used for residential purposes. Hence, the ejectment petition filed by the respondents had been rightly allowed by the Courts below. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on 'Rakesh Vij versus Dr.Raminder Pal Singh Sethi and others, : 2005(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 354' wherein it has been held as under: -