A perusal of the cross-examination of RW-1 Subhash Chander reveals that he had admitted that cheque (Exhibit P-5) for the period of July 2004 to December 2006, had been issued in the name of Harjit Singh. He further stated that he had verified qua the ownership of the demised premises and the same was in the name of the respondents. He further admitted that the papers in this regard were shown to him by Mehar Singh. Hence, it is evident that the petitioner had admitted that the demised premises was owned by the respondents and he had also issued cheque Exhibit P-5 in the name of respondent Harjit Singh with regard to payment of rent. Therefore, the receipt Annexure P-17, issued by Mehar Singh qua acceptance of rent, does not lead to the inference that Mehar Singh was owner of the premises in question. The receipt Annexure P-17 was issued by Mehar Singh qua acceptance of rent qua the demised premises, although, a cheque qua the period in question i.e. from July 2004 to December 2006 was issued in the name of respondent Harjit Singh. Hence, Annexure P-17 fails to advance the case of the petitioner to the extent that the respondents were not the owners/landlords of the premises in question. In view of the cross-examination of petitioner, the Courts below rightly held that there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
