Allowed

Amrik Singh v. Darshan Singh Sagoo & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC28 Jan 2014CR/4182/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a revision petition setting aside an order dismissing the tenant's application for leave to defend. The Court held that triable issues regarding ownership and the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship required the ejectment petition to be contested.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 15.2.2013 dismissing the application for leave to defend is set aside, and the application is allowed.

Amrik Singh Vs Darshan Singh Sagoo & Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 4182 of 2013 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶4

Civil Revision No. 4182 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision: 28.1.2014.

Amrik Singh

.......Petitioner

Versus

Darshan Singh Sagoo and others

¶9

.......Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶11

Present: Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. M.S.Bedi, Advocate for the respondents.

¶13

¶14

SABINA, J.

¶15

Respondents had filed petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 ('Act' for short) for ejectment of the petitioner from the shop in question.

¶16

The case of the respondents was that the plot belonged to Ram Singh who had purchased the same along with other property from Joginder Singh resident of Simble Batala vide sale deed dated 21.6.1966. After the death of Ram Singh, respondents and Gurpal Singh had become owners/co-sharers of the shop in dispute. Gurpal Singh had expired. Petitioner had taken the shop in question on rent from the respondents at a monthly rent of ` 400/-. Now the respondents, who were Non-Resident Indians, wanted to return back to India and required the premises in question for their personal use.

¶17

Singh Gurpreet 2014.02.10 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

¶18

Civil Revision No. 4182 of 2013 (O&M)

¶19

-2-

¶20

Petitioner moved an application for leave to defend the ejectment petition. However, the said application was dismissed vide impugned order dated 15.2.2013 (Annexure P-1) and ejectment of the petitioner was ordered by the Rent Controller. Hence, the present petition by the petitioner.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner had specifically denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Petitioner had taken the shop in question on rent from Gurpal Singh. After the death of Gurpal Singh, his wife had filed the ejectment petition against the petitioner. In the application filed by the petitioner for leave to defend the ejectment petition, he had specifically pleaded that respondents were not owners of the shop in question. The Rent Controller had erred in holding that the petitioner had admitted that the shop in question was owned by Ram Singh.

¶22

Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that respondents had been successful in establishing that they were co-sharers qua the premises in question and the ejectment petition filed by the respondents had been rightly allowed by the Rent Controller.

¶23

In the present case, respondents have sought ejectment of the petitioner under Section 13-B of the Act. Annexure P-5 is the rent deed dated 17.11.1988. As per the said rent deed, Gurpal Singh had rented out the premises in question to the petitioner at a monthly rent of ` 400/-. A perusal of the said rent deed (Annexurre P-5) reveals that Gurpal Singh had described himself as owner of the property in questions.

¶24

Para Nos. 3 and 9 of the application for leave to defend,

¶25

Singh Gurpreet 2014.02.10 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

¶26

Civil Revision No. 4182 of 2013 (O&M)

¶27

-3-

¶28

read as under:-

¶29

“That, the respondent did not take the possession of the shop in dispute from the petitioners as a tenant, hence the relations of the landlord and tenant did not exists between the petitioners and respondent qua the shop in dispute.

¶30

That, the petitioner are not is owner of the shop in dispute and did not give the shop as a tenant to the respondent, hence above said case is without any merit and is liable to be dismissed.”

¶31

Thus, the petitioner had specifically averred that the petitioner was not the owner of the shop in question nor the shop in question had been rented out to him by the respondents. Petitioner had specifically denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The Rent Controller, while dismissing the application for leave to contest the ejectment petition has held that the ownership of the property of Ram Singh had gone totally unrebutted and had presumed that the petitioner had admitted the fact that the property in question actually belonged to Ram Singh. The Rent Controller basing reliance on jamabandi, placed on record by the petitioner, held that the premises in question belonged to Ram Singh and had been inherited by his sons i.e. respondents and Gurpal Singh.

¶32

The Rent Controller had erred in holding that the petitioner had admitted the fact that Ram Singh was owner of the property in question. Rather, petitioner had specifically denied in the application (Annexure P-3) for leave to defend the ejectment petition that respondents were co-owners of the shop in dispute

¶33

Singh Gurpreet 2014.02.10 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

¶34

-4-

¶35

Civil Revision No. 4182 of 2013 (O&M)

¶36

and had given the same on rent to the petitioner. Rather as per Annexure P-5, the shop in question had been rented out to the petitioner by Gurpal Singh, being owner of the shop in question. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is evident that there were triable issues in the present case as to whether the respondents were owners of the premises in question and whether their existed relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.

¶37

The Apex Court in ' Rachpal Singh and others vs. Gurmit Kaur and others 2010(1)LAR 254' has been held as under:-

¶38

“ If some triable issues are raised then the controversy can be properly adjudicated after ascertainment of truth through cross-examination of witnesses who have filed their affidavits and other material documents. Burden is on the landlord to prove his requirement and his assertion is required to be tested more so when the status of the respondent has been specifically challenged and also when the landlord-tenant relationship is in question. Therefore, we do not see any infirmity in the common order passed by the High Court in Civil Revision Petitions 4096 of 2007 and connected matters dated 28.4.2008.”

¶39

In these circumstances, since there were triable issues in the present case, the learned Rent Controller erred in dismissing the application moved by the petitioner for leave to defend the ejectment petition.

¶40

Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 15.2.2013 (Annexure P-1) is set aside. Consequently, the Singh Gurpreet 2014.02.10 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

¶41

Civil Revision No. 4182 of 2013 (O&M)

¶42

-5-

¶43

application moved by the petitioner for leave to defend the ejectment petition is allowed.

¶44

(SABINA) JUDGE

¶45

January 28, 2014 Gurpreet

¶46

Singh Gurpreet 2014.02.10 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

Amrik Singh v. Darshan Singh Sagoo & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amrik Singh v. Darshan Singh Sagoo & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajinder Kumar Kalia Vs Raj Kumar Kalia

(O&M) Onkar Singh Vs Kanwal Goyal and Ors.

Ashok Kumar Vs Pavnish Mitter Malhan

Shakuntla Devi and Ors. Vs Jain School Society

Bhupinder Singh Vs Dev Bhardwaj

Mohan Lal Gupta Vs Satya Devi and Anr.