Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raj Paul Kaushik vs Lal Chand on 7 November, 2013
Author: Jaswant Singh
Bench: Jaswant Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CR No.3616 of 2005(O&M)
Date of Decision:-07.11.2013
Raj Paul Kaushik
......Petitioner.
Versus
Lal Chand
......Respondent.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present:- Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate for Petitioner(tenant).
None for the respondent(landlord).
***
JASWANT SINGH, J.(ORAL)
Petitioner(tenant) Raj Paul Kaushik is in revision against the concurrent judgments passed by both the Authorities below whereby the learned Rent Controller, Fatehgarh Sahib vide its judgment dated 13.12.2004 ordered the eviction of the tenant on the ground of non payment of arrears of rent without giving an opportunity to clear the arrears in view of the denial of relationship of landlord and tenant; and the findings thereof duly affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority, Fatehgarh Sahib vide judgment dated 7.6.2005.
This Court while admitting the revision vide order dated 21.09.2006 observed as under:-
" Learned Courts below have ordered the ejectment of the petitioner by holding that there existed relationship of landlord and tenant by relying upon the entries in the Municipal record and oral statement made by a person. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Amar Nath Vs. Som Nath (Deceased) by his Legal representatives Smt. Kaushalya & Ors. 1982(1) RCR(Rent) 457 to contend that no finding on the relationship of landlord and tenant could be recorded on Mahajan Vinay 2013.11.07 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document at Chandigarh the available evidence on record.
Admitted.
Stay execution of the impugned order."
At the time of hearing today learned Counsel for the petitioner(tenant) states that present revision as per his instructions from his client has become infructuous in view of the respondent(landlord) having sold the demised premises to the wife of petitioner(tenant) vide registered sale deed dated 2.9.2009.
None has appeared on behalf of the respondent(landlord) to refute the aforesaid contention.
In view of the statement made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner(tenant), present revision is dismissed as infructuous.
( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE November 07, 2013 Vinay Mahajan Vinay 2013.11.07 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document at Chandigarh