Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1050 (PNJ)

Manju Saini @ Manjit Kaur v. Balwinder Kaur

2024-07-12

ANIL KSHETARPAL

body2024
JUDGMENT Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, J. In this revision petition, the petitioner (tenant) assails the correctness of the concurrent orders passed by the Rent Controlling authorities while refusing to grant her leave to contest. 2. In order to comprehend the issues involved in the present case, the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed. 3. The suit property was purchased in the name of Mahinder Singh in the year 1970. The petitioner (tenant) claims that in fact this property was purchased by her father Sh. Hardial Singh in the name of Sh. Mahinder Singh. On 29.04.1973, Mahinder Singh acknowledged in writing that Sh. Hardial Singh is the owner of the suit property. Subsequently, in the year 1980, Sh. Hardial Singh filed a suit claiming that the property was purchased by him in the name of Sh. Mahinder Singh. It is the case of the petitioner that during the pendency of the aforesaid suit, the parties entered into settlement resulting in withdrawal of the suit. Sh. Mahinder Singh is alleged to have sold the property by virtue of two sale deeds in favour of Sh. Karnail Singh, the respondent's husband. She filed the petition under Section 24 of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995, seeking eviction of the petitioner while alleging that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was alleged that Sh. Mahinder Singh had in fact inducted the petitioner as her tenant. 4. The petitioner filed an application for leave to contest while alleging that the building consisting of three floors was constructed by Sh. Hardial Singh and the electricity connection etc. is also in the name of Sh. Hardial Singh or his son Sh. Daljit Singh. It was also contended that all the children of Sh. Hardial Singh were born in this house. The relationship of landlord and tenant was emphatically denied. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority have chosen to reject the application for leave to contest. 5. This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paper book. 6. The learned counsel representing the petitioner while reiterating the facts as noticed above submits that there is absolutely no evidence to prove that there existed a relationship of landlord and tenant between Sh. Mahinder Singh and the petitioner. This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paper book. 6. The learned counsel representing the petitioner while reiterating the facts as noticed above submits that there is absolutely no evidence to prove that there existed a relationship of landlord and tenant between Sh. Mahinder Singh and the petitioner. He submits that both the courts have erred in refusing to grant leave to contest. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel representing the respondent submits that the suit filed by Sh. Hardial Singh was withdrawn. Hence, Sh. Hardial Singh cannot claim title. He submits that in the sale deed executed by Sh. Mahinder Singh, it is recorded that the family of Sh. Hardial Singh is his tenant. While relying upon the Division Bench judgment passed in Smt. Bachan Kaur and others v. Kabal Singh and another, 2011 (2) R.C.R.(Civil) 886, he submits that owner can file the petition. 8. This court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel representing the parties. 9. For applicability of Punjab Rent Act, 1995, the relationship of landlord and and tenant is sine-qua-non . The tenancy is result of bilateral contract. Neither Sh. Mahinder Singh is alleged to have rent out the property by a document in favour of Sh. Hardial Singh nor the petitioner relies upon any document to prima facie show the relationship of the landlord and tenant. No receipt of rent has been produced to even prima-facie prove that there is relationship of landlord and tenant. 10. Furthermore, the suit filed by Sh. Hardial Singh was never decided on merits. It was dismissed as withdrawn. The validity, genuineness and enforceability of writing dated 29.04.1973, is yet to be established. The petitioner has not been given opportunity to even contest the rent petition. The case is at the stage of leave to contest. Prima-facie, she has shown that she has some contest to triable issue. 11. This court has carefully read the judgment passed in Smt. Bachan Kaur's case(supra). The observations made by the court in the context of maintainability of petition by a non-resident, who is co-owner. Hence, that judgment is not applicable. 12. Consequently, the order passed by the Rent Controller, which in appeal was affirmed by the Appellate Authority are set aside. The application for leave to contest shall stand allowed. The observations made by the court in the context of maintainability of petition by a non-resident, who is co-owner. Hence, that judgment is not applicable. 12. Consequently, the order passed by the Rent Controller, which in appeal was affirmed by the Appellate Authority are set aside. The application for leave to contest shall stand allowed. The petitioner shall be permitted to contest the petition. 13. The revision petition is allowed. 14. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of.