- (1.) This order shall dispose of three revision petitions bearing CR No. 4703 of 2010 (O&M) titled as 'Hardev Singh Bilkhu v. Mehtab Singh', CR No. 4704 of 2010 (O&M) titled as 'Hardev Singh Bilkhu v. Om Parkash' and CR No. 5533 of 2010 (O&M) titled as 'Hardev Singh Bilkhu v. Anil Kumar and another' as all these petitions are against the similar order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar dated 10.11.2009 by which an application filed by the tenant(s) under Section 18-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short "the Act"] in the petition filed under Section 13-B of the Act by the landlord, has been allowed.
(2.) The only argument raised by learned Counsel for the Petitioner in all the three cases is that the learned Court below has erred in granting leave to defend the application filed under Section 13-B of the Act in view of the finding recorded in para No. 10 of the impugned order, which is reproduced as under: 10. Second ground emphasized by learned Counsel for the tenant/applicant is that property in dispute as alleged in petition being shown red in the site plan forming part of property No. ND 174, Bikrampura, Mai Hira Gate, Jalandhar in the title of the petition can not be connected with property mentioned in copy of sale deed dated 14.12.1931 placed on record by Petitioner/landlord regarding land comprised in Khasra No. 17327/3611/2, 7615/449, Kheat No. 2233, Khatauni No. 5679-5680 measuring 20K-84M. The learned Counsel for the tenant also argued that even alleged mutation sanctioned in favour of Hardev Singh Bilkhu son of Late Mahnga Singh Bilkhu was qua the property comprised in Khewat No. 7185, Khatauni No. 8821 to 8916 measuring 117 Kanals 5 Marlas, Khasra No. 239 and cannot be connected with property mentioned in sale deed and even, with the premises in dispute.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner admits that the Petitioner did not place the document Annexure P-1 on the record of the learned Rent Controller from which he has tried to project that the property in dispute is the same and for that the trial is not required.;