S. PALPINDER SINGH SANDHU Vs. ATMA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision arises out of order dated 2nd Sept., 2004 passed by the Rent Controller, Amritsar granting leave to defend to the tenant under Sec. 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1948. A reading of the order shows that the only ground on which leave to defend was granted, is that at the time of filing of the rent petition, the landlord has not placed on record any document of title showing that petitioner is owner of plot No.52. The Rent Controller noted that perusal of the file shows that petitioner had placed on record a copy of the sale deed dated 13th March, 2003 to substantiate his claim. Since the sale deed was within a period of five years before filing the petition, leave was granted to the tenant to prove that petitioner was not owner of the disputed property for five years before filing of the rent petition.

(2.) At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to paragraph 3 of the order of the Rent Controller and pointed out that petitioner has himself placed on record the letter of allotment dated 2nd March, 1996 in the name of his father regarding property bearing No. 52. It is the contention that he would naturally have inherited the property from his father being his legal heir, which is now evident from the sale deed dated 28th March, 2003.

(3.) At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent has also brought to my notice that the petitioner-landlord has also filed two more petitions for evicting the tenant from property bearing No.52-53 situated in the area of Islamabad Development Scheme, Amritsar. In those petitions leave to defend was declined by the Rent Controller and order of ejectment was passed. The tenant preferred Civil Revision Nos. 4651 and 5054 of 2004 against the order of ejectment. The revisions have been allowed by this Court on 31st March, 2006 with the following orders: