Jagjit Singh vs Rajesh Bansal And Others on 14 August, 2019
While in Jagjit Singh's case, the
3 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 09-12-2019 22:00:04 :::
Civil Revision No.1727 of 2017 (O&M) 4
Petitioner/Tenant had placed the entire history of his tenancy from the
time he had been inducted in the demised premises by one Ajit Singh
(since deceased) including the history of litigations between the
parties as well as of the subsequent Eviction Petition filed by one
Deepak Sarin whose connection with the original Landlord Ajit Singh
was never disclosed in the Eviction Petition, and which on the other
hand was allowed to get dismissed for non-prosecution when the
Tenant had sought for production of Sale Deeds or other documents
pertaining to Title of said Deepak Sarin who had claimed to be the
Landlord. Thereafter, a third Application for Eviction was filed
against Jagjit Singh by a third set of persons claiming to be Landlords
who again did not file any copy of the actual Sale Deed or document
of transfer executed in their favour by either Ajit Singh or even their
purported Predecessor Deepak Sarin, although in reponse to the
Application filed on behalf of Tenant to the effect that even copies of
Transfer Letters issued in their favour by the Chandigarh
Administration were not supplied to him along with the Eviction
Petition, they supplied such copies along with their reply on
15.3.2018 after which, the Tenant on the very first date fixed for
filing his Written Statement while denying ownership of the
Respondents who in any case had still shown any actual Title Deeds
in their favour, had nevertheless also offered to deposit the rent at the
rate admitted by him in accordance with the previous litigations. Not
only that, the Tenant in the said case after the death of his admitted
Landlord Ajit Singh had even written to son of the deceased asking
him to inform as to whom he should pay the rent after the Landlord's
4 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 09-12-2019 22:00:04 :::
Civil Revision No.1727 of 2017 (O&M) 5
demise, and the proof of that letter served upon the Landlord's son,
which was apparently never replied was placed on the record of the
case.