Punjab-Haryana High Court
Malkiat Singh vs Harjit Singh on 4 December, 2009
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Review Application No.CR-109-CI of 2009 in
Civil Revision No.514 of 2008
Date of Decision : 04.12.2009
Malkiat Singh .....Petitioner-applicant
versus
Harjit Singh .....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
Present : Mr.Puneet Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioner-applicant.
-.-
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
---
ORDER
Surya Kant, J. (Oral) This review application has been filed by the tenant-applicant for review/recalling of the order dated 7.9.2009, whereby he has not been permitted to question the title of his landlord while contesting the eviction petition filed by the NRI-landlord under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restrictions Act, 1949. According to the applicant, the NRI- landlord is obligated to prove to be owner of the demised premises for a period of more than 5 years before filing of the eviction petition, therefore, he should be permitted to question the ownership of the landlord as well.
Having heard learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner at some length, I do not find any ground to recall/review the order dated R.A No.CR-109-CII of 2009 in C.R.No.514 of 2008 2 7.9.2009.
Vide the afore-stated order, it was held by this Court that the NRI-landlord is claiming ownership on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 30.1.1973 in his favour as well as the Will executed by his brother bequeathing the former's share also in his favour. In the review application, the applicant-tenant has conceded that the NRI-landlord had purchased the demised premises from one Piara Singh and Piara Singh is said to have acquired title on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 8.1.1970. The question, as to whether or not any mutation was sanctioned in favour of Piara Singh, is wholly irrelevant as mutation does not confer any title. From the documents relied upon by the applicant himself, it stands duly proved that the respondent-NRI is a bonafide purchaser of the demised premises and that too way back on 30.1.1973. No person claiming title of the demised premises has come forward either to dispute the sale deed dated 8.1.1970 in favour of Piara Singh-vendor from whom the NRI- landlord purchased the property nor the sale deed dated 30.1.1973 executed by Piara Singh in favour of the NRI-landlord is under clouds.
In this view of the matter, no error apparent on the record, is pointed out. The review petition stands dismissed.
04-12-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE