CR-3368-2025 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-3368-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.08.2025 Sham Lal @ Sham Lal Gujjar ...Pe((oner Versus Kamlesh Rani ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Kanwar Abhay Singh, Advocate for the pe((oner. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) 1. It is tenant’s revision against the concurrent finding of evic(on. 2. Pe((on filed under Sec(on 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restric(on Act 1949, for ejectment, by the landlord Kamlesh Rani (respondent herein) was accepted by Learned Rent Controller vide order dated 23.10.2023 whereby the tenant Sham Lal Gujjar (pe((oner herein) was directed to handover the possession of the demised premises to the landlady. The said order of the Rent Controller was upheld by Ld. Appellate Authority on 15.04.2025, while dismissing the appeal of the tenant-pe((oner herein. 3. Assailing the orders, it is contended by learned counsel that there was no rela(onship of landlord and tenant between the par(es inasmuch as pe((oner herein was owner of the premises to the extent of 1/3rd share. It is further contended by learned counsel that Rent notes relied upon by the landlady i.e. respondent herein were forged documents. 4. A?er hearing the learned counsel for the pe((oner at considerable length and going through the paper book, this Court does not find any merit in the revision. 5. It has been found by both the Courts below that premises in ques(on was earlier owned by Sham Lal i.e. pe((oner herein but he had sold Yogesh Mehta 2025.08.26 17:02 I agree to specified portions of this document CR-3368-2025 (O&M) [2] the same to landlady Kamlesh Rani vide a registered sale deed dated 05.07.2006 (Ex.P-1). On the same day, the pe((oner herein executed a rent note taking the property in dispute on monthly rent of Rs.4000/-. This tenancy was (ll 31.07.2007. Rent was enhanced from (me to (me and the last Rent was Rs.17000/- per month w.e.f. 01.06.2014 which had not been paid by the pe((oner herein. 6. It was found by the Courts below that sale deed dated 05.07.2006 (Ex.P-1) had not been assailed (ll date and as such, there was no reason to disbelieve the same. S(ll further, the rent notes (Ex.P-2) and (Ex.P-3) were duly proved not only by the tes(mony of landlady but further by PW-2 Ashwani Kumar, a marginal witness. 7. Learned counsel could not convince this Court as to how said rent notes are forged documents, par(cularly when the execu(on thereof, has been duly proved on record. The Courts below did not commit any error in holding that there existed rela(onship of landlord and tenant between the par(es. As the rela(onship was denied by the pe((oner herein and ul(mately it was found that the said rela(onship was established, so the Courts rightly relied upon Rakesh Wadhawan’s case, so as to hold that there was no ques(on of providing opportunity to the tenant to pay the arrears of rent. 8. This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the Rent Controller and as affirmed by the Appellate Court. 9. Accordingly, the present civil revision is dismissed. 25.08.2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No Yogesh Mehta 2025.08.26 17:02 I agree to specified portions of this document