Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 48067 (PNJ)

BALBIR SINGH RAI v. GURMEET KAUR (SINCE DECEASED) WIFE OF NARINDER SINGH THROUGH LRS AND ANOTHERS

ESA/34/2025 · 2025-04-29

Anil Kshetarpal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 ESA-34-2025(O&M) 145 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ESA-34-2025(O&M) Date of decision:29.04.2025 Balbir Singh Rai ..Appellant Versus Gurmeet Kaur (since deceased) through her LRs and another ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL Present: Mr. Siddharth Gupta, Advocate for the appellant ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. (Oral) The objection petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed by the Executing Court, which in appeal, has been affirmed by the appellate authority. Gurmeet Kaur was the original owner/landlady. She filed an eviction petition against the tenant J.C.Kapoor which was allowed on 23.07.2012. Since then she was struggling to get possession of the property. The order passed by the Rent Controller is executable. J.C.Kapoor filed an appeal, which was dismissed for non-prosecution which was never got restored. In the meantime, the landlady died. Execution petition was filed by the landlady’s son namely Baldev Singh. The appellant filed an objection petition claiming to be tenant under Gurmeet Kaur by virtue of rent deed dated 20.06.2011. The original whereof was never produced. The appellant has failed to prove even a single payment of rent of one month whereas he claims to be in possession as a tenant for the last 14 years. He has failed to prove any payment to the landlady. The original rent deed has not also been Rekha Sihagproduced. 2025.05.02 12:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh 2 ESA-34-2025(O&M) Learned counsel representing the appellant submits that daughter-in-law of Gurmeet Kaur namely Harinder Kaur executed rent deed in favour of the appellant. The appellant is first required to surrender possession to Gurmeet Kaur or her heir. It is only thereafter he can file any claim. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, no ground to interfere is made out. Hence, dismissed. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of. (ANIL KSHETARPAL) 29.04.2025 JUDGE rekha Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No’ Rekha Sihag 2025.05.02 12:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh