SHARDA THAKAR Vs. JAGJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 29.08.2008 passed by the Rent Controller, Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur whereby the petitioner has been ordered to evicted from the shop marked ABCD in the site plan and situated in Khasra No.520, Khata No.290/304 in Ward No.5, Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur. The eviction order has been passed in an eviction petition filed by the respondent under Section 13B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act'). The Rent Controller has held that the respondent is owner of the shop in dispute; there is a relationship of landlord and tenant and the petitioner who denied the title of the respondent and the relationship of landlord and tenant, can not be permitted to question the need of the respondent qua the shop in dispute.

(2.) THE facts may be noticed briefly.

(3.) THE petitioner - tenant applied for leave to contest - denying the ownership of the respondent and his brothers/mother or his deceased father as well as the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The Rent Controller granted leave to contest and thereafter the petitioner filed his written statement on inter -alia, denying the ownership of the respondent or his mother and brothers. He also denied that the shop in dispute is constructed in Khasra No.520 and claimed that the shop is situated within the Lal Dora of the town. He also denied that the respondent or his brothers and mother have inherited any property of Harbhajan Singh. He asserted that "even if Harbhajan Singh had any interest or title in the shop in dispute, the same has extinguished by lapse of time". The petitioner further claimed that in the year 1990 he started doing barber's job in front of the shop by putting a Chair and table and since the shop was lying vacant, he 'occupied' the same and started the barber work in the said shop in August, 1990 and that Harbhajan Singh had no right or interest in the shop and he had become 'owner' of the shop by way of "adverse possession". The petitioner claimed alternatively that the respondent holds a Canadian Passport and is not an Indian and he being permanently settled in Canada, has no intention to return to India.