ASHWANI KUMAR Vs. PAWAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present revision petition is to the judgment dtd. 14/7/2022 passed by the Rent Controller, Jalandhar vide which the eviction petition filed by the respondent under Sec. 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred as "the 1949 Act") as amended up to date, for the eviction of the present petitioner from the shop in question situated at Mohalla No. 29, Jalandhar Cantt had been allowed. Challenge is also to the judgment and decree dtd. 22/10/2024 vide which the appeal filed by the present petitioner had been dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two grounds of challenge to the judgments passed by the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority. First ground raised on behalf of the petitioner is to the effect that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent and once there was no relationship of landlord and tenant then the question of respondent seeking eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question does not arise. It is further submitted that the respondent-Pawan Kumar, who had appeared as PW1 had in his cross- examination, stated that he had not taken any consent in writing from all the legal heirs before filing the petition and had also not disclosed to them about filing of the present eviction petition. It is submitted that from the said piece of evidence, it was apparent that other co-sharers were objecting to the said eviction petition and thus, on the said ground alone, the eviction petition deserves to be dismissed. It is further submitted that since the respondent-landlord was claiming landlordship on the basis of being the son of Parmeshwari Devi, who was the admitted landlord, thus, it was incumbent upon the respondent-landlord to provide details of all the legal heirs of the said Parmeshwari Devi and to have consent of all the said legal heirs and since the same was missing, thus, the impugned judgments deserve to be set aside and the present revision petition deserves to be allowed.

(3.) Second ground of challenge raised on behalf of the petitioner in the present revision petition is that the eviction petition had been filed by the respondent-landlord for his and his sons' necessity. It is submitted that in the cross-examination of the said PW1, the respondent-landlord had admitted that his son was doing job in MES in the year 2017 and the said fact had not been disclosed in the eviction petition and thus, the same proves that the requirement of the respondent is not bona fide.