RAGHBIR SINGH Vs. SURJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall disposes of the above mentioned two revision petitions as they emerge out of the similar set of facts and involve similar questions of law. However, for the sake of brevity, facts from Civil Revision No. 5681 of 2012 are being extracted. The said revision has been filed against the order dated 30.7.2012 passed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, vide which the application filed by the tenant/petitioner under Section 18 (4) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act') has been dismissed.

(2.) In brief, facts are that the respondent herein filed a petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for ejectment of the tenant/petitioner from the premises forming part of property bearing No. B-1-1194 situated at Sessions Chowk, Civil Lines, Ludhiana, inter-alia, on the grounds she is the specified landlady as defined under Section 2 (dd) of the Act and at present is resident of 206-Fallen Leaf Driver, Columbia SC 29229 USA. She returned to India and as such bonafidely required the premises in question for the use and occupation of her husband, who being technically qualified person wanted to start his own business of pesticides, in which he had gained experience of more than 40 years. It was averred that she is owner of the property bearing number 1194 of which the demised premises is a part for the last 5 years and the tenant/petitioner has occupied the said shop at monthly rent of Rs.32/- for the last several years and is running a tailoring business therein. She also requires the other portion of the above said property regarding which she had filed ejectment petition against tenants occupying those portions.

(3.) On notice, the tenant/petitioner herein put in appearance and filed an application under Section 18 (4) of the Act seeking leave to contest the petition on the ground that the petitioner is neither owner nor landlady of the demised premises; nor has he ever paid rent to the respondent. In fact, one Pritpal Singh son of Lal Singh was owner of the building in question and he had let out the demised premises to him. The respondent never conveyed to the petitioner that she has become owner of the demised premises. The sale deed dated 19.7.1988 placed on record was alleged to be a forged and fabricated document, having been executed by Dhantej Kaur in favour of the petitioner, who herself was not owner of the property in question; nor did the said Dhantej Kaur have any right over the property in question.