CR No.3141 of 2001(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.3141 of 2001(O&M) Date of Decision : 23.07.2014 Mohan Lal ....Petitioners Versus Udham Singh ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present : Mr.Amarjit Markan, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.A.S.Cheema, Advocate for the respondent MAHESH GROVER, J.
This petition has been filed by the landlord who had unsuccessfully sought the eviction of the respondent – tenant from the demised premises which is a shop bearing No.51 situated in village Cheema As per the admitted facts, the Gram Panchayat was owner of the land which had leased out the same to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.42/- per month.
The petitioner is said to have constructed the shop and let the same to the respondent at the rate of Rs.200/- per month.
It was pleaded that since respondent had not paid the rent since 1989 alongwith house tax he deserved to be evicted from the premises.
Petition was contested by the respondent who denied the averments as also the relationship of landlord and tenant but admitted that the shop belonged to the Gram Panchayat and that rent was being paid by him directly to the Gram Panchayat.
Both the Courts dismissed the plea of the petitioner which has resulted in the filing of the instant petition wherein learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the findings recorded by both the Courts below are Rekha sihag 2014.07.28 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CR No.3141 of 2001(O&M) 2 erroneous and are liable to be set aside.
Upon perusal of the material on record it would indicate that the petitioner failed to produce best evidence in his favour.
He had stated that he acquired the land from Gram Panchayat and raised construction of the shop and except for the statement of the petitioner himself no other evidence was produced.
No resolution of the Gram Panchayat was produced.
The petitioner even failed to produce the rent note even though he had pleaded the existence of the same.
Much reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the previous suit filed in the year 1989 to say in para 5 of the written statement, filed therein that the respondent was served with notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act but even this notice failed to see the light of the day.
Merely because the respondent admitted that the notice had been received by him and replied to it would not indicate the acceptance of relationship between the landlord and tenant, more particularly, when the proceedings were initiated before the Rent Controller in the year 1995 and there is evidence to suggest that the petitioner himself had been paying the lease money to Gram Panchayat till year 1994 but nothing to show any such transaction thereafter.
Therefore, it is difficult to understand in the absence of evidence as to what subsisting right petitioner had in his favour to claim the existence of lease from Gram Panchayat when the proceedings against the respondent were initiated by him in 1995 and his lease possibly extinguished in 1994.
Significantly the resolutions which could have formed fundamental basis of the right of the petitioner to claim rent from the respondent have not been produced by him.
This fact assumes importance Rekha sihag 2014.07.28 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CR No.3141 of 2001(O&M) 3 because it is the conceded case of the parties that the land and shop belong to the Gram Panchayat and therefore, the petitioner is neither the land owner nor landlord.
Hence it was incumbent upon him to prove in the fiRs.instance that he has a subsisting right in his favour from the owner.
Thus when the petitioner failed to establish his claim of being the landlord he also fails to establish that the respondent is a tenant under him because he did not produce any rent note despite having pleaded so.
Considering the facts in totality, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to substantiate his case and thus findings of the Courts below which are concurrent need not be interfered with.
Petition is therefore, held to be without any merit and is hereby dismissed.
July 23, 2014 (MAHESH GROVER) rekha JUDGE Rekha sihag 2014.07.28 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh