JANTA TRANSPORT Vs. AMARJEET SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below ordering eviction of the petitioner from the premises in dispute.

(2.) The respondent had filed a petition for eviction on the ground that he required the demises premises to settle his 21 year old son who wanted to open a Gym in the premises. This contention having been accepted by both the Courts the petitionertenant is before this Court.

(3.) Learned senior counsel has raised two arguments. His first argument is that the landlord-respondent did not disclose that he possessed numerous other properties and this is fatal to his claim. A perusal of the judgments of the Courts below reveal that the Courts have taken into consideration the fact that the properties were originally owned by the father of the landlord and he had nine other brothers and sisters and, therefore, the authorities held that even though some of them may be lying vacant it could not be said that they were in the possession of the landlord. Learned senior counsel has argued that it is well settled that the possession of one co-sharer is the possession of all the co-sharers and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the authorities to have held that the respondent was in possession of those vacant properties and his non-disclosure disentitles him from relief. In this context he has relied upon Jaspreet Takhar v Ghai Enterprises and others, 2013 169 PunLR 765 and Ravinder Sood and another v. Mohan Lal, 2013 169 PunLR 722. In the case of Mrs. Jaspreet Takhar this Court observed as follows:-