NAVEEN CHANDER Vs. LOKESH KUMAR KHETARPAL AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of CR Nos.1651 of 2011 and 2009 of 2012, as the facts involved are the same in both these petitions. Both these petitions have been filed by the petitioners against the concurrent orders of eviction of the petitioners on the ground of personal necessity. The premises in dispute was House No.136, Model Town, Jalandhar, half of which was on rent with petitioner-Naveen Chander, and other half with petitioner-Chander Mohan, who are both stated to be cousins.

(2.) The case of the respondent was that he had been living in the house of his brother who had since retired and had been pressing him to vacate that house, and that his own son was of marriageable age and consequently, he required the premises in dispute for his own use. For this purpose, he filed two independent rent petitions against both the petitioners.

(3.) In support of the claim that the premises where the respondent was staying was owned by his brother, the said brother appeared in evidence and testified that he was the owner. He has also placed on record a document which, as per learned counsel for the petitioners, was not at-all admissible in evidence. However, no evidence was led by the petitioners to the effect that the house was actually owned by the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that once the brother of the respondent did not produce any document of title, the assertion that he was the owner could not have been held to be established. As per him, on the previous date also when he appeared as a witness, he had been asked to produce the original title deed and having not been produced the same, an adverse inference had been drawn against him.