Dismissed

Daya Shankar Pandey and Another v. Akali Times Trust through Manpreet Singh Sood

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Sept 2024CR/5484/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the revision application challenging the rejection of a prayer to amend the written statement in an ejectment petition to plead title by adverse possession. It held that in ejectment proceedings, the proceeding does not determine title; hence, amending the petition to raise a title dispute is not permissible.

What did the court decide?

The revision application was dismissed with the prayer to amend the written statement being rejected.

Daya Shankar Pandey and Another Vs Akali Times… — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

S. No. 116

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

¶4

Civil Revision No.5484 of 2024 Date of Decision:20.09.2024 Daya Shankar Pandey and another .....Pe//oners Vs. Akali Times Trust .....Respondent

¶5

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

¶6

Present:Mr. Sanjeev Roy, Advocate for the pe��oners. ****

¶7

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (Oral)

¶8

Akali Times Trust, Jalandhar (respondent herein) filed an ejectment pe��on against Daya Shankar Pandey and another (pe��oners herein) in respect of the demised pemises. The pe��oners denied the rela�onship of landlord and tenant between the par�es. During pendency of the pe��on, applica�on was moved by the pe��oners under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC so as to amend the wri/en statement in order to plead that they had become owner of the demised property on the basis of adverse possession since 1997. It was submi/ed in the applica�on that the words “adverse possession” could not be men�oned in the wri/en statement inadvertently and so they wanted to amend the wri/en statement. Said applica�on has been dismissed by the learned Rent Controller by way of impugned order dated 04.09.2024 which is assailed before this Court.

¶9

Learned counsel for the pe��oner contends that the pe��oners had specifically challenged the ownership of the respondent and had even asked it to produce the documents of �tle but the applica�on to that effect was dismissed and, therefore, amendment of the wri/en statement has become necessary.

¶10

This Court does not find any merit in the pe��on. In an ejectment pe��on, it is for the landlord to prove rela�onship of landlord and tenant between the par�es as the ques�on of �tle is not to be determined. In case, the landlord fails to prove the rela�onship of landlord and tenant between the par�es, eventually the

¶11

RENU 2024.09.20 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶12

CR No.5484 of 2024 -2-

¶13

pe��on will fail. However, that in itself cannot be a ground to permit the respondent of the pe��on i.e. the pleaded tenant to raise the issue of �tle of the landlord.

¶14

Not only this, by claiming to have acquired �tle of the demised premises by way of adverse possession, pe��oners herein want to change the nature of the pe��on, which cannot be permi/ed.

¶15

Consequently, this Court does not find any merit in this pe��on. The same is hereby dismissed.

¶16

September 20, 2024 ( DEEPAK GUPTA ) renu JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶17

RENU 2024.09.20 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Daya Shankar Pandey and Another v. Akali Times Trust through Manpreet Singh Sood

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Daya Shankar Pandey and Another v. Akali Times Trust through Manpreet Singh Sood

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yashpal Alias Yash Vs State of Punjab

Raj Kumar Vs United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd.

Karamjit Kaur etc. Vs Nirbhai Singh etc.

Neero Devi Vs Arvind Kumar

Didar Singh Vs Kamaljeet Kaur and Ors.

Surjit Singh Since Deceased Thr Lrs and Another Vs Sonia Dhillon and Another