L.N.MITTAL - (1.) KIRNA alleged tenant (for convenience, referred to as tenant) has filed this revision petition under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.
(2.) RESPONDENT-landlady Daya Wanti filed ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Act against petitioner Kirna alleging that the landlady let out the demised house to the tenant @ `3,000/- per month rent w.e.f. 04.02.2006. Ejectment was sought on the ground of non-payment of rent since 04.03.2006 onwards and also on the ground of necessity of the demised property by the landlady for her own use and occupation. The tenant denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was alleged that the tenant had raised loan from the landlady and for the same, mortgage deed was to be executed but the landlady by fraud obtained sale deed dated 29.03.2004, which is null and void. Landlady has also filed complaints under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the tenant. It was denied that demised house was let out to the tenant by the landlady or any rent note was executed. The rent note is also forged and fabricated. Grounds of ejectment pleaded by the landlady were also controverted. At the stage of cross-examination of the landlady as witness, counsel for the tenant pleaded `no instructions' and since none else appeared for the tenant, she was proceeded ex parte. Learned Rent Controller, Patiala vide order dated 04.05.2010 allowed the ejectment petition. Appeal against the said order preferred by tenant has been dismissed by learned Appellate Authority, Patiala vide judgment dated 22.02.2012. Feeling aggrieved, tenant has filed this revision petition.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.;