- (1.) This order shall dispose of three Civil Revisions namely, CR No.8395 of 2010 titled as "Malkiat Singh Nandhra Vs. Kanta Devi and another" (for short 'I st petition), CR No.8236 of 2010 titled as "Ramandeep Singh Vs. Shri Malkiat Singh Nandhra" (for short 'II nd petition') and CR No.421 of 2011 titled as "Harjit Singh Vs. Shri Malkiat Singh Nandhra" (for short "III rd petition').
(2.) The I st petition is filed by the landlord against the impugned order (Annexure P-6) dated 22.11.2010 by which the learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar has allowed the prayer of the tenant for further cross-examination of PW1 Malkiat Singh & PW2 Dalip Singh on the question of title/ownership of the landlord over the demised premises, whereas II nd and III rd petitions are by the tenants against the order of the same Rent Controller dated 18.11.2010 (Annexure P-3) by which the permission to recall PW1 Malkiat Singh and PW2 Dalip Singh for further cross-examination in respect of title the landlord, has been declined.
(3.) In brief, Malkiat Singh has filed four petitions under Section 13B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act') claiming himself to be owner of the building adjoining Nandhara House, Opposite Jyoti Cinema, Jalandhar which he had partly acquired by way of purchase from Piara Singh and partly by inheritance from Piara Singh on the basis of Will dated 16.3.1979 which came in to effect w.e.f. 9.7.1979 after the demise of Piara Singh. After notice, the tenants filed application for seeking leave to defend which was allowed by the Rent Controller. The landlord filed four petitions in this Court bearing CR Nos.512, 514, 515 & 516 of 2008, which were decided on 7.9.2009 with the following observations: "Suffice it to observe here that some of contentions raised on behalf of the respondents do make out triable issue(s) and the Rent Controller appears to have committed no error of jurisdiction while granting leave to contest. While the petitioner can still prove that his parents or grand-parents were born and brought-up in India and he fulfills the requirements of Section 2[dd] of the Act, the respondents would also be at liberty to prove otherwise or that there are more than one commercial properties, which are subject matter of eviction petition as against the entitlement of the petitioner landlord for eviction from one property only. As regards the petitioner's title, in my considered view, the tenants have no locus standi to question the execution of Will by the brother of the petitioner and/or the sale deed dated 30.1.1973. A tenant has no right to question the title of his landlord. Otherwise also, even if it is assumed that the Will executed by Piara Singh in favour of the petitioner is shrouded by suspicious circumstances, the fact remains that the petitioner is still a co-owner of the demised premises on the strength of the sale deed dated 30.1.1973 and is entitled to maintain an eviction petition under Section 13-B of the Act as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baldev Singh Bajwa's case [supra] and by this Court in Maya Kishan v Karam Singh, CR No. 3717 of 2009, decided on 8th July, 2009. Similarly, it is imperative upon the Rent Controller to keep in view the legislative intent behind Section 18A[6] of the Act and dispose of the eviction petitions expeditiously by ensuring that not more than three opportunities are granted to the parties to lead their respective evidence even, if there are more than one triable issues. The eviction petition shall accordingly be disposed of preferably before 31.03.2010.";