JAGDISH RAI Vs. GULBIR SINGH (DECEASED) TH. LRS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition, filed by the petitioner-tenant is directed against the order passed by the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana dated 20.01.2017 (Annexure P4) whereby report has been called from the Rent Controller, while allowing the application filed under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC, of the landlord.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that by virtue of the said order, the deceased landlord and his legal representatives cannot be permitted to fill up the lacuna which has surfaced and of the facts which they were in knowledge of.

(3.) A perusal of the paper-book would go on to show that the rent petition was filed by Gulbir Singh (now deceased) for ejectment from the premises in question on the ground that his sons, namely, Simranpreet Singh and Anmolpreet Singh, who have qualification of +2, have, now, become major and want to set up their business in the shop in question. The factum of the landlord not having a son, as such, was never objected to by the petitioner-tenant, as such. However, it is apparent that in cross-examination, while the wife-Ravinder Kaur was appearing, it has come across that Simranpreet Singh was son of Jit Singh and thus, a dispute arose regarding the parentage. It is also not disputed that during the pendency of the eviction petition, Simranpreet Singh had been brought on record as the legal representative. But in spite of the said fact, the Rent Controller had dismissed the eviction petition on 29.07.2016 (Annexure P1) on the ground that it was not proved that Simranpreet Singh was the son of the landlord.