Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 708 (PNJ)

Sita Ram v. Malwinder Kaur

2011-03-03

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

body2011
JUDGMENT RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. - This revision petition is directed against the order dated 09.9.2010, passed by the learned Rent Controller, Amritsar, by which an application filed by the tenant under Order 3 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (for short, 'CPC'), has been dismissed. 2. In brief, the landlord filed a petition under Section 13-A of The East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, 'the Act') in order to seek eviction of the tenant from the demised premises (residential house) on the ground of personal use and occupation. The petitioner/tenant filed an application on 27.7.2010 under Order 3 Rule 1 of the CPC alleging therein that Malwinder Kaur (landlady) who is allegedly resident of Canada and is pursuing the eviction petition through her Power of Attorney Sarbjit Singh has, in fact, died as he has been told by a friend who is also resident of Canada. Thus, it was clear that after her death, the present petition cannot continue as the necessity much-less bonafide as well as Special Power of Attorney executed in favour of Sarbjit Singh, has come to an end. 3. In the said application, reply was filed in which it was alleged that Malwinder Kaur is very much alive and to prove that fact, an affidavit dated 24.8.2010 was placed on the record which was sent from Alberta (Canada) alongwith the original envelope. 4. The learned Rent Controller came to a positive conclusion that the application is frivolous and dismissed it. Thereafter, the present revision petition was filed in which notice of motion was issued on 15.11.2010 for 1.2.2011 and thereafter, an application was filed by the tenant for staying the proceedings before the Rent Controller in which following order was passed by this Court on 29.11.2010 which is reproduced below:- “Present: Mr. Sarbjit Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he will file an affidavit stating the name and particular of the person and the source from where he has acquired knowledge of the respondent having died. Let the needful be done within a period of one week from today. List for further proceedings on 1.2.2011. In the meantime, the trial Court shall fix the date beyond the date fixed by this Court. Let the needful be done within a period of one week from today. List for further proceedings on 1.2.2011. In the meantime, the trial Court shall fix the date beyond the date fixed by this Court. It is made clear that in the eventuality of the petitioner not filing an affidavit within a period of one week from today, the interim direction granted by this Court shall stand vacated and the trial Court shall be free to dispose of the matter in accordance with law” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no evidence has been brought on record by the landlady to prove that she is residing at the given address and is alive. In view thereof, the finding recorded by the Court below is patently illegal and is liable to be set aside. 6. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent submits that learned counsel for the petitioner is a practising lawyer at Amritsar, who is not allowing the application for eviction to make any headway on one pretext or the other. He also submits that earlier his evidence was closed by order of the Court against which the revision petition was filed before this Court which was allowed on 15.7.2010 subject to payment of Rs.5000/-as costs. However, the tenant neither paid the costs nor led any evidence. Rather on 27.7.2010, the present application was filed in which a false assertion has been made that the landlady is no more and the eviction petition filed by Power of Attorney does not survive. He submits that an affidavit was produced before this Court on 24.8.2010 alongwith original envelope which was received from Canada. 7. The Rent Controller was fully satisfied with the evidence led by the landlady about her existence, whereas no evidence was led by the tenant either before the Rent Controller or in pursuance of the order dated 29.11.2010 as he did not file the desired affidavit and had got the proceedings delayed by getting an order from this Court by which the proceedings in the trial Court were adjourned beyond a date given by this Court. He has placed on record today one affidavit dated 20.1.2011 of the landlady which is notorised by Harjit S. Judge 9240-34 Avenue NW Edmonton, AB, who is a Notary Public in and for the Province of Alberta. He has placed on record today one affidavit dated 20.1.2011 of the landlady which is notorised by Harjit S. Judge 9240-34 Avenue NW Edmonton, AB, who is a Notary Public in and for the Province of Alberta. He has also attested card bearing No. BO552879 of Malwinder Kaur The said affidavit is taken on record as Mark 'A'. 8. After taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that there is no merit in the present revision petition which is only a handy work of the learned counsel for the petitioner who is working as a practising Advocate, who has misused the proceedings of law for his own benefit by stalling the proceedings before the Rent Controller inasmuch as neither he led any evidence when he was given an opportunity by this Court nor he deposited the costs. In the present petition, he has not even filed an affidavit of the person from whom he obtained the said information on the basis of which he had alleged that Malwinder Kaur has already expired. Moreover, neither in the application nor in the petition, name of that person is mentioned. Thus, I am fully convinced that this type of step taken by the learned counsel for the tenant who happens to be a practising Advocate, at Amritsar, is only an abuse of the process of law and nothing else, therefore, the present revision petition is dismissed with Rs.25,000/-as costs, which shall be paid by the tenant to the landlord by way of bank draft. Petition Dismissed.